# Dharam Singh v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2022) 9 ILRA 1616
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-08-06
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 3271 of 2020
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Ajai Tyagi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dharam-singh-v-state-of-u-p-49056
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973-Section 374(2) - Indian Penal
Code, 1860-Sectionn 302-Challenge toConviction- dying declaration could not
have been made as she had burn injuries,
this is also unacceptable as there were
only 60% injuries and she had survived
for
9
days-The
dying
declaration
contained the name of the husband, no
doubt there is improvement in the second
dying declaration but the same is ignoredThe husband is a young person of 20
years- One more glaring aspect which has
been pointed out that the postmortem
report was never placed on record by the
prosecution, it appears from the evidence
itself it is clear that postmortem was not
conducted- it was a case of homicidal
death not amounting to murder and the
offence is punishable under Section 304
Part I of I.P.C as death occurred after few
days the incident occurred. The incident
occurred due a fight between husband
and deceased which took a ugly turn and
the deceased was set ablaze-the death
caused
by
the
accused
was
not
premeditated,
accused
though
had
knowledge and intention to cause bodily
harm to the deceased but did not want to
do away with the deceased. Hence the
instant case falls under the Exceptions 1
and 4 to Section 300 of IPC. While
considering Section 299 as reproduced
herein above offence committed will fall
under Section 304 Part-I (Para 1 to 19)

B.
While
considering
imposition
of
appropriate punishment, the impact of
crime on the society as a whole and rule of
law needs to be balanced. The judicial
trend in the country has been towards
striking a balance between reform and
punishment. The protection of society and
stamping out criminal proclivity must be
the object of law which can be achieved
by imposing appropriate sentence on
criminals and wrongdoers. Law, as a tool
to maintain order and peace, should
effectively meet challenges confronting
the society, as society could not long
endure and develop under serious threats
of crime and disharmony. It is therefore,
necessary to avoid undue leniency in
imposition of sentence. Thus, the criminal
justice
jurisprudence
adopted
in
the
country is not retributive but reformative
and corrective. At the same time, undue
harshness should also be avoided keeping
in
view
the
reformative
approach
underlying
in
our
criminal
justice
system.(Para 16)

The appeal is partly allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

1616 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2022) 9 ILRA 1616
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.08.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE AJAI TYAGI, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 3271 of 2020

Dharam Singh ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Upendra Kuma Pushkar, Sri Abhishek
Mayank

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
Govt. Advocate

A. Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973-Section 374(2) - Indian Penal
Code, 1860-Sectionn 302-Challenge toConviction- dying declaration could not
have been made as she had burn injuries,
this is also unacceptable as there were
only 60% injuries and she had survived
for
9
days-The
dying
declaration
contained the name of the husband, no
doubt there is improvement in the second
dying declaration but the same is ignoredThe husband is a young person of 20
years- One more glaring aspect which has
been pointed out that the postmortem
report was never placed on record by the
prosecution, it appears from the evidence
itself it is clear that postmortem was not
conducted- it was a case of homicidal
death not amounting to murder and the
offence is punishable under Section 304
Part I of I.P.C as death occurred after few
days the incident occurred. The incident
occurred due a fight between husband
and deceased which took a ugly turn and
the deceased was set ablaze-the death
caused
by
the
accused
was
not
premeditated,
accused
though
had
knowledge and intention to cause bodily
harm to the deceased but did not want to
do away with the deceased. Hence the
instant case falls under the Exceptions 1
and 4 to Section 300 of IPC. While
considering Section 299 as reproduced
herein above offence committed will fall
under Section 304 Part-I (Para 1 to 19)

B.
While
considering
imposition
of
appropriate punishment, the impact of
crime on the society as a whole and rule of
law needs to be balanced. The judicial
trend in the country has been towards
striking a balance between reform and
punishment. The protection of society and
stamping out criminal proclivity must be
the object of law which can be achieved
by imposing appropriate sentence on
criminals and wrongdoers. Law, as a tool
to maintain order and peace, should
effectively meet challenges confronting
the society, as society could not long
endure and develop under serious threats
of crime and disharmony. It is therefore,
necessary to avoid undue leniency in
imposition of sentence. Thus, the criminal
justice
jurisprudence
adopted
in
the
country is not retributive but reformative
and corrective. At the same time, undue
harshness should also be avoided keeping
in
view
the
reformative
approach
underlying
in
our
criminal
justice
system.(Para 16)

The appeal is partly allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. St. of U.P. Vs Ram Sagar Yadav (1985) 1 SCC
552

2. Ravada Sasikala Vs St. of A.P. (2017) AIR SC
1166

3. Jameel Vs St. of U.P. (2010) 12 SCC 532

4. Guru Basavraj Vs St. of Karn. (2012) 8 SCC
734

5. Sumer Singh Vs Surajbhan Singh (2014) 7
SCC 323
9 All. Dharam Singh Vs. State of U.P.
1617
6. St. of Punj. Vs Bawa Singh (2015) 3 SCC 441

7. Raj Bala Vs St. of Har. (2016) 1 SCC 463

8. Deo Narain Mandal Vs St. of U.P. (2004) 7
SCC 257

9. Mohd. Giasuddin Vs St. of A.P. (1977) AIR SC
1926

10. Veeran & ors. Vs St. of M.P. (2011) 5 SCR
300

11. Tukaram & ors. Vs St. of Mah. (2011) 4 SCC
250

12. B.N. Kavatakar & anr Vs St. of Karn. (1994)
SUPP 1 SCC 304

13. Saudan Singh Vs St. of U.P, CRLA No.
308/2022 arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 4633 of
2021

14. Bachan Singh Vs St. of Punj. (1980) AIR SC
898

15. Machhi Singh Vs St. of Punj. (1983) 3 SCC
470

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal
Jayendra Thaker, J.
&
Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi, J.)

1. Heard Abhishek Mayank, learned
counsel for the appellant and learned
A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
Though the matter is listed for hearing
application for enlargement on bail we with
consent of counsels heard the matter as
record is before this Court. It is not
disputed that the accused is in jail since
5.12.2009, so heard finally.

2. This appeal challenges the
judgment and order dated 27.10.2020
passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court
No.3, Aligarh in Sessions Trial No. 459 of
2010 convicting accused-appellant for
commission of offence under Section 302
of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter
referred to as 'IPC') and sentenced him to
undergo imprisonment for life with fine of
Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of
fine, further to undergo imprisonment for
one year.

3. Brief facts as culled out from the
record are that on 01.06.2009 sister of
complainant Tejpal Singh got married with
accused Dharam Singh. He gave sufficeint
dowry in the marriage. However, Dharam
Singh (husband of the deceased) and her inlaws were not satisfied with the dowry given
in the marriage. On 02.11.2009, the
complainant received a phone call from his
elder sister Urmesh that her sister was burnt
alive by her in-laws. On that information,
complainant and his father reached the
village Sahara Kala where his sister was
found in burnt condition but her in-laws were
not present at their house. Victim disclosed in
front of informant that at 5:00 A.M her
husband Dharam Singh, elder brother-in-law
(Jeth) Raju and brother-in-law Rambabu tried
to burn her to death. Complainant went with
his sister who was in being treated in burns
ward for medical treatment at Government
Hospital, Iglas. On 11.11.2019, during the
treatment, Radha died. On the basis of the
above complaint, the First Information
Report was lodged which culminated into the
charge-sheet being laid against the accusedappellant, Dharam Singh under Section 302,
498A and 201 of I.P.C.

4. On being summoned, the accused
pleaded not guilty and wanted to be tried.
The offence for which accused was charged
was triable by the Court of Sessions, hence,
the accused-appellant was committed to the
Court of Sessions. The learned Sessions
Judge framed charge under Section 302 of
I.P.C.
1618 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

5. The Trial started and the
prosecution examined 9 witnesses who are
as follows:

1
2
3
4

5

6
7
8
9

Tejpal Singh
Const.
Clerk
Indrapal
Singh
I.O. Retd. Ghanshyam
Singh
A.D.M
Finance
and
Revenue
Maharajganj,
Rajendra Prasad
Retd.
Naib
Tehsildar,
Iglas Shivendra Kumar
Yadav
Pharmacist C.H.C., Iglas
Ramesh Chandra
Dr. Govind Prasad
Dr. Rakesh Mohaniya,
Agra
Dr. Sri Ram Sharma

PW1
PW2
PW3
PW4

PW5

PW6
PW7
PW8
PW9

6. In support of ocular version
following documents were filed:

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Tehrir
Copy of Chik F.I.R
G.D
Site Plan
Charge-sheet
Statement of deceased
Radha
Dying Declaration
Register Report
Certified Copy of P.I.
Register
Information letter of S.O.
Sadar, Agra
Lavaniya Hospital and
Research Center receipt
Ex.Ka.1
Ex.Ka 2
Ex.Ka3
Ex.Ka 4
Ex.Ka 5
Ex.Ka 6
Ex.Ka 7
Ex.Ka 8
Ex.Ka 9
Ex.Ka 10
Ex.Ka 11

7. At the end of the trial and after
recording the statement of the accused
under section 313 of Cr.P.C., and hearing
arguments on behalf of prosecution and the
defence,
the
learned
Sessions
Judge
convicted the appellant as mentioned
above.

8. The accused is in jail since
05.12.2009. On 23.11.2020, this Court had
passed orders directing the State counsel to
file counter affidavit, if any, to application
for enlargement on bail. Unfortunately, for
a period of two years this matter was not
listed. It is submitted by learned counsel for
the
appellant
that
the
judgment
of
Criminal Appeal No. 308/2022 (Saudan
Singh Vs. State of U.P) arising out of
SLP (Crl) No. 4633 of 2021, decided on
25.02.2022 would apply to the facts of this
case. We have got the record before this
Court. The case would according to the
learned counsel would fall under Section
304 (1) I.P.C as the deceased after getting
burn injuries died after about a period of 8
days. The dying declaration implicates the
husband. The implication is on the
husband. The learned Judge as according to
the State counsel has rightly considered the
judgments of Bachan Singh Vs. State of
Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 898 and Machhi
Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (1983) 3 SCC
470 and has sentenced the accused and
there is no question of showing any
leniency in this matter where the wife has
implicated the husband and she had died
out of burn injuries. The examination of
P.W.-1 and P.W.-2, according to the State
counsel who have lodged the F.I.R. The
deceased had 60% burn injuries, the
deceased was brought in a critical situation
to the hospital, the death of the victim has
been proved to be due to burn injuries as
Dr. Sri Ram Sharma, P.W.-9 has testified
an oath and confirmed the same. We are
not convinced by the submission of the
learned counsel for the appellant that the
9 All. Dharam Singh Vs. State of U.P.
1619
husband has been wrongly punished and
there are inconsistent dying declaration.
The learned Judge while considering the
case has not differentiated between Section
300 I.P.C and Section 304 I.P.C. The
provisions of Section 300 I.P.C read a
follows:-

"300. Murder.--Except in the
cases
hereinafter
excepted,
culpable
homicide is murder, if the act by which the
death is caused is done with the intention of
causing death, or--

(Secondly) --If it is done with the
intention of causing such bodily injury as
the offender knows to be likely to cause the
death of the person to whom the harm is
caused, or--

(Thirdly) --If it is done with the
intention of causing bodily injury to any
person and the bodily injury intended to be
inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course
of nature to cause death, or--

(Fourthly)
--If
the
person
committing the act knows that it is so
imminently dangerous that it must, in all
probability, cause death or such bodily
injury as is likely to cause death, and
commits such act without any excuse for
incurring the risk of causing death or such
injury as aforesaid."

9. The submission of the learned
counsel for the appellant that the dying
declaration could not have been made as
she had burn injuries, this is also
unacceptable as there were only 60%
injuries and she had survived for 9 days.
The dying declaration contained the name
of the husband, no doubt there is
improvement
in
the
second
dying
declaration but the same is ignored. The
Naib Tehsildar has opined his oath and Dr.
Govind Prasad also testified the said fact.
All these cumulative facts permit us to
accept the dying declaration.

10. The prosecution examined Dr. Sri
Ram Sharma as P.W-9. The deceased was
admitted
to
Lakhniya
Hospital
and
Research
Center,
Tajganj,
Agra
on
10.11.2009 but she was discharged on
11.11.2009, she was referred and also
according to the treatment report as Exhibit
-11, she breathed her last on 11.11.2009
itself. The incident occurred on 02.11.2009
at 5:00 A.M in the morning. There was a
commotion between the husband and wife.
She did not name the persons who are in
her neighbour and who brought her to the
hospital, the husband and her in-laws did
not came to the hospital. The husband is a
young person of 20 years. One more
glaring aspect which has been pointed out
by the counsel that the postmortem report
was never placed on record by the
prosecution, it appears from the evidence
itself it is clear that postmortem was not
conducted and the accused according to the
prosecution were even charged for Section
201, 498A I.P.C but for Section 498A and
Section 201 I.P.C the accused has been
acquitted.

11. This takes us to the alternative
submission whether the offence would be
punishable under Section 304 Part I or II or
Section 302 of I.P.C.? The question to be
answered would be whether there is any
intention or knowledge or it was a murder
simpliciter?

12. The question which falls for our
consideration is whether, on reappraisal of
the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
case, the conviction of the appellant under
Section 302 of I.P.C. should be upheld or
1620 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the conviction deserves to be converted
under Section 304 Part-I or Part-II of the
Indian Penal Code. It would be relevant to
refer Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code,
which read as under:

 "299.
Culpable
homicide:
Whoever causes death by doing an act with
the intention of causing death, or with the
intention of causing such bodily injury as is
likely to cause death, or with the knowledge
that he is likely by such act to cause death,
commits the offence of culpable homicide."

13. The academic distinction between
''murder' and ''culpable homicide not
amounting to murder' has always vexed the
Courts. The confusion is caused, if Courts
losing sight of the true scope and meaning
of the terms used by the legislature in these
sections, allow themselves to be drawn into
minute abstractions. The safest way of
approach
to
the
interpretation
and
application of these provisions seems to be
to keep in focus the keywords used in the
various clauses of Section 299 and 300 of
I.P.Code. The following comparative table
will be helpful in appreciating the points of
distinction between the two offences.

Section 299
A
person
commits
culpable homicide if the
act by which the death is
caused is done-
Section 300
Subject
to
certain
exceptions
culpable
homicide
is
murder if the
act by which the
death is caused
is done.

INTENTION
(a)
with
the (1) with the intention of
intention
of
causing death; or
(b)
with
the
intention
of
causing
such
bodily injury as is
likely to
cause death; or

KNOWLEDGE
(c)
with
the
knowledge
that
the act is likely to
cause death.

causing death; or
(2) with the intention of
causing
such
bodily
injury as the offender
knows to be likely to
cause the death of the
person to whom the
harm is caused;
KNOWLEDGE
(4) with the knowledge
that
the
act
is
so
immediately dangerous
that it must in all
probability cause death
or such bodily injury as
is likely to cause death,
and without any excuse
for incurring the risk of
causing death or such
injury as is mentioned
above.

14. On overall scrutiny of the facts
and circumstances of the present case
coupled with the opinion of the Medical
Officer and considering the principles laid
down by the Apex Court in the Case titled
Tukaram
and
Ors
Vs.
State
of
Maharashtra, reported in (2011) 4 SCC
250 and in the matter of B.N. Kavatakar
and Another Vs. State of Karnataka,
reported in 1994 SUPP (1) SCC 304, we
are of the considered opinion that it was a
case of homicidal death not amounting to
murder and the offence is punishable under
Section 304 Part I of I.P.C as death
occurred after few days the incident
occurred. The incident occurred due a fight
between husband and deceased which took
a ugly turn and the deceased was set ablaze.

15. From the upshot of the aforesaid
discussions, it appears that the death caused
by the accused was not premeditated,
accused
though
had
knowledge
and
9 All. Dharam Singh Vs. State of U.P.
1621
intention to cause bodily harm to the
deceased but did not want to do away with
the deceased. Hence the instant case falls
under the Exceptions 1 and 4 to Section
300 of IPC. While considering Section 299
as
reproduced
herein
above
offence
committed will fall under Section 304 PartI as per the observations of the Apex Court
in Veeran and others Vs. State of M.P.
Decided, (2011) 5 SCR 300 which have to
be also kept in mind.

16. It would be relevant for us to refer
a recent judgment of this High Court in
Criminal Appeal No. 2878 of 2013 :-

14.
While
coming
to
the
conclusion
that
the
accused
is
the
perpetrator
of
the
offence,
whether
sentence of life imprisonment and fine is
adequate or the sentence requires to be
modified in the facts and circumstances of
this case and in the light of certain judicial
pronouncements and precedents applicable
in such matters. This Court would refer to
the following precedents, namely, Mohd.
Giasuddin Vs. State of AP, [AIR 1977 SC
1926],
explaining
rehabilitary
&
reformative aspects in sentencing it has
been observed by the Supreme Court:

"Crime
is
a
pathological
aberration. The criminal can ordinarily be
redeemed and the state has to rehabilitate
rather than avenge. The sub-culture that
leads to ante-social behaviour has to be
countered not by undue cruelty but by
reculturization. Therefore, the focus of
interest in penology in the individual and
the goal is salvaging him for the society.
The infliction of harsh and savage
punishment is thus a relic of past and
regressive times. The human today vies
sentencing as a process of reshaping a
person
who
has
deteriorated
into
criminality and the modern community has
a primary stake in the rehabilitation of the
offender as a means of a social defence.
Hence a therapeutic, rather than an 'in
terrorem' outlook should prevail in our
criminal courts, since brutal incarceration
of the person merely produces laceration of
his mind. If you are to punish a man
retributively, you must injure him. If you
are to reform him, you must improve him
and, men are not improved by injuries."

15.
'Proper
Sentence'
was
explained in Deo Narain Mandal Vs. State
of UP [(2004) 7 SCC 257] by observing
that
Sentence
should not be
either
excessively harsh or ridiculously low.
While
determining
the
quantum
of
sentence, the court should bear in mind the
'principle of proportionality'. Sentence
should be based on facts of a given case.
Gravity of offence, manner of commission
of crime, age and sex of accused should be
taken into account. Discretion of Court in
awarding sentence cannot be exercised
arbitrarily or whimsically.

16. In Ravada Sasikala vs. State
of A.P. AIR 2017 SC 1166, the Supreme
Court referred the judgments in Jameel vs
State of UP [(2010) 12 SCC 532], Guru
Basavraj vs State of Karnatak, [(2012) 8
SCC 734], Sumer Singh vs Surajbhan
Singh, [(2014) 7 SCC 323], State of
Punjab vs Bawa Singh, [(2015) 3 SCC
441], and Raj Bala vs State of Haryana,
[(2016) 1 SCC 463] and has reiterated
that, in operating the sentencing system,
law should adopt corrective machinery or
deterrence based on factual matrix. Facts
and given circumstances in each case,
nature of crime, manner in which it was
planned
and
committed,
motive
for
commission of crime, conduct of accused,
nature of weapons used and all other
1622 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
attending circumstances are relevant facts
which
would
enter
into
area
of
consideration. Further, undue sympathy in
sentencing would do more harm to justice
dispensations and would undermine the
public confidence in the efficacy of law. It
is the duty of every court to award proper
sentence having regard to nature of offence
and manner of its commission. The
supreme court further said that courts must
not only keep in view the right of victim of
crime but also society at large. While
considering imposition of appropriate
punishment, the impact of crime on the
society as a whole and rule of law needs to
be balanced. The judicial trend in the
country has been towards striking a
balance between reform and punishment.
The protection of society and stamping out
criminal proclivity must be the object of
law which can be achieved by imposing
appropriate sentence on criminals and
wrongdoers. Law, as a tool to maintain
order and peace, should effectively meet
challenges confronting the society, as
society could not long endure and develop
under serious threats of crime and
disharmony. It is therefore, necessary to
avoid undue leniency in imposition of
sentence.
Thus,
the
criminal
justice
jurisprudence adopted in the country is not
retributive but reformative and corrective.
At the same time, undue harshness should
also be avoided keeping in view the
reformative approach underlying in our
criminal justice system.

17. Keeping in view the facts and
circumstances of the case and also keeping in
view criminal jurisprudence in our country
which is reformative and corrective and not
retributive, this Court considers that no
accused person is incapable of being
reformed and therefore, all measures should
be applied to give them an opportunity of
reformation in order to bring them in the
social stream.

18.
As
discussed
above,
''reformative theory of punishment' is to be
adipted and for that reason, it is necessary to
impose punishment keeping in view the
''doctrine of proportionality'. It appears from
perusal of impugned judgment that sentence
awarded by learned trial court for life term is
very harsh keeping in view the entirety of
facts and circumstances of the cases and
gravity of offence. Hon'ble Apex Court, as
discussed above, has held that undue
harshness should be avoided taking into
account the reformative approach underlying
in criminal justice system.

17. On the basis of the record which is
before us we come to a definite conclusion
that the death was occurred due to burn
injuries caused by the appellant-accused.
There was a commotion in the morning
though there are two dying declarations, we
rely on the first dying declaration as per the
judgment of State of U.P. Vs. Ram Sagar
Yadav, (1985) 1 SCC 552 come to final
analysis. The question is what would be just
punishment for twenty year old person who is
in jail since 05.12.2009.

18. Therefore, we convert the sentence of
'life imprisonment' to 10 years' rigorous
imprisonment. Unfortunately the fine has been
Rs.20,000/- which is reduced to Rs. 10,000/-. If
10 years of incarceration is over, the accusedappellant be set free if not wanted in any other
case. However, if fine is not paid, the default
sentence will run after the completion of 10
years. We alter the conviction from Section 302
I.P.C. to Section 304(1) I.P.C.

19. Accordingly, the appeal is partly
allowed with the modification of the
sentence and fine as above.
9 All. Nanhey Vs. State
1623

20. Record and proceedings be sent
back to the Court below forthwith.

21. A copy of this order be sent to the
jail authorities for following this order and
doing the needful.

22. This Court is thankful to Sri
Abhishek Mayank, learned counsel for the
appellant who has ably assisted this Court
and even argued the main matter. We are
also thankful to Sri N.K. Srivastava and Sri
Mishra, learned A.G.As for ably assisting
us.
----------
(2022) 9 ILRA 1623
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.08.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA , J.
THE HON'BLE SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, J.

Jail Appeal No. 3589 of 2005

Nanhey ...Appellant
Versus
State ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellant:
From Jail, Sri Pramod Kumar Pandey (A/C)

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A.

A. Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code,1973-Section 374(2) - Indian Penal
Code,1860-Sections 302 r/w Section 34Culpable
homicide-life
imprisonmentSudden fight over dirty water flowing in
the
drain
between
neighbours-The
statement of PW-1 is specific that it was
the accused appellant who inflicted stab
wound on the abdomen of the deceased
and other injuries caused by Lathi and
Danda by two brothers of the appellantthere was no premediation on part of the
accused
party-The
case
falls
under
Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC- therefore,
the appellant could at best be punished
for culpable homicide not amounting to
murder, under Section 304 IPC, and not
under Section 302 IPC-Since he has
already undergone incarceration of nearly
16 years, even without remission-The
appellant is thus convicted under Section
304 IPC and is released on the period of
sentence already undergone by him. (Para
1 to 20)
The appeal is partly allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:
1. Dhirajbhai Gorakhbhai Nayak Vs St. of Guj.
(2003) 9 SCC 322 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1809

2. Virsa Singh Vs St. of Punj. (1958) AIR SC 465
: 1958 Cri LJ 818

3. St. of U.K. Vs Sachendra Singh Rawat (2022)
4 SCC 227
(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar
Mishra, J.
&
Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad, J.)

1. Heard Sri Pramod Kumar Pandey,
learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant
and Mrs. Archana Singh, learned AGA for
the State.

2. This jail appeal is directed against
judgment and order dated 22.07.2005,
passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/
Special Judge, Budaun in Sessions Trial
No. 29 of 2003, State vs. Nanhey whereby
the appellant has been convicted under
section 302 read with 34 IPC, in Crime
No.123/98, Police Station Islamnagar,
District
Budaun
and
consequently
sentenced to life imprisonment.

3. As per the prosecution version the
first informant (PW-1) was cleaning drain