# Hakim v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2022) 10 ILRA 396
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-09-07
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 2 of 2019
- **Bench:** Suneet Kumar, Syed Waiz Mian
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/hakim-v-state-of-u-p-47732
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections302/149 & 148 -Victim shot deadillegal fire arms-assaulted with blow of Farsa
and knives-accused fled away-autopsy report-
five injuries-F.I.R. not ante time-testiminy of
interested witness not necessarily unreliableimpugned judgment not based on surmisebacklogs of Appeal-not a ground to grant bail.

Bail Application rejected. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

396 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the view favouring the accused must be
accepted."

38. In Khema and others vs. State of
U.P. and others, AIR 2022 SC 3765, the
Supreme Court has reiterated the previous
judgment of the Court in Vadivelu Thevar
vs. State of Madras, 1957 SCR 981,
wherein the Court emphasized that well
established rule of law is that the Court is
concerned with quality and not the quantity
of evidence necessary for proving or
disproving a fact. Generally speaking, oral
testimony may be classified into three
categories, namely: (1) wholly reliable, (2)
wholly unreliable and (3) neither wholly
reliable nor wholly unreliable. In the first
category the court may acquit or convict on
the testimony of a single witness, if it found
to be above reproach or suspicion of
interestedness,
incompetence
or
subornation. In the second category the
court has equally no difficulty in coming to
its conclusion. It is in the third category of
cases that the court has to be circumspect
and has to look for corroboration in
material particulars by reliable testimony,
direct or circumstantial.............

39. On the conspectus of above
consideration, we are of the opinion that
prosecution has not succeeded in proving
the guilt of accused appellant beyond
reasonable doubt on the basis of evidence
led by it.

40. For the reasons recorded above,
this appeal succeeds and is allowed. The
accused appellant is held entitled to the
benefit of doubt and consequently, the
judgment and order dated 21/22.6.2002,
passed by the Additional Sessions Judge
(FTC-4), Firozabad in Sessions Trial No.
157 of 1997, State Vs. Rakesh and others;
whereby the appellant Suresh has been
convicted under section 302 IPC in Case
Crime
No.509/1995,
Police
Station
Shikohabad,
District
Firozabad
and
sentenced to rigorous life imprisonment
alongwith fine of Rs. 1000/- and on failure
to pay the fine to undergo six months
additional imprisonment, is set aside.

41. The accused appellant Suresh
since is already on bail, his bail bond and
sureties shall stand discharged and he shall
be set at liberty, unless he is wanted in any
other case subject to compliance of Section
437A Cr.P.C.

42. We also record our appreciation
for the pro bono services rendered by Sri
Saghir Ahmad, learned Senior Counsel,
who has appeared as Amicus Curiae for the
appellant. Sri Raghib Ali, Advocate, who
has assisted the senior counsel shall
however be entitled to his fee from the
High Court Legal Service Authority.
----------
(2022) 10 ILRA 396
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUNEET KUMAR, J.
THE HON'BLE SYED WAIZ MIAN, J.

Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 2 of 2019
in Re:
Crl Appeal No. 6632 of 2019
alongwith connected cases

Hakim ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Sri Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, Sri Pankaj Kumar
Shukla

Counsel for the Respondent:
10 All. Hakim Vs. State of U.P.
397
G.A., Sri Anil Kumar Pandey

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections302/149 & 148 -Victim shot deadillegal fire arms-assaulted with blow of Farsa
and knives-accused fled away-autopsy report-
five injuries-F.I.R. not ante time-testiminy of
interested witness not necessarily unreliableimpugned judgment not based on surmisebacklogs of Appeal-not a ground to grant bail.

Bail Application rejected. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Hari Obula Reddy Vs St. of A.P., (1981) 3 SCC
675
2. Jalpat Rai Vs St. of Har., (2011) 14 SCC 208

(Delivered by Hon'ble Syed Waiz Mian, J.)

1. Heard Shri Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi,
Pankaj Kumar Shukla, Lalit Kumar Shukla,
Ashutosh Singh and Jawahar Yadav,
learned counsel for the appellant, Shri
Deepak Kumar Pandey, learned Amicus
Curiae, Shri Anil Kumar Pandey, learned
counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A.
for the State and perused the record.

2. The aforementioned Criminal Appeal
No. 6632 of 2019, Hakim vs. State, has
been filed against the judgment and order
dated 25.07.2019, passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Court No. 3 Mathura, in
Session Trial No. 803 of 2013, State vs.
Hakim Singh & Anr., arising Out of Case
Crime No. 06 of 2013, under Sections-148,
302 read with 149 I.P.C., convicting the
appellant U/s 148 I.P.C. and sentencing
them three years rigorous imprisonment
and fine of Rs. 5,000/- in case of default of
payment of fine further three months
additional imprisonment and U/s 302 read
with 149 I.P.C. sentencing them life
imprisonment and fine of Rs. 20,000/- and
in case of default of payment of fine further
one year additional imprisonment and all
the sentences were runs concurrently.

Criminal Appeal No. 5907 of 2019,
Kishani vs. State of U.P. has been filed
against the judgment and order dated
25.07.2019, passed by the Additional
Session Judge, Court No. 3, Mathura, in
S.T. No. 299 of 2013, State vs. Kishani &
Ors, arising out of Case Crime No. 6 of
2013, under Sections-148, 302/149 I.P.C.,
Police Station-Refinary, District-Mathura,
convicting the appellant under Section 148
I.P.C. and sentencing the appellant for three
years rigorous imprisonment and imposed
fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of
payment the appellant shall undergo three
months additional imprisonment, and under
Section 302/149 I.P.C. sentencing the
appellant for life imprisonment and fine of
Rs. 20,000/- and in default of payment the
appellant shall undergo one year additional
imprisonment and all the sentences run
concurrently.

Criminal Appeal No. 6501 of 2019,
Ajay Singh @ Ajju vs. State of U.P., has
been filed against the judgment and order
dated 25.07.2019, passed by the Additional
Session Judge, Court No. 3, Mathura, in
S.T. No. 299 of 2013 (leading case), State
vs. Kishani & Ors, and S.T. No. 344 of
2014 (State vs. Hakim Singh & Anr.)
convicting the appellant under Section 148
I.P.C. and sentencing the appellant for three
years rigorous imprisonment and imposed
fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of
payment the appellant shall undergo three
months additional imprisonment, and under
Section 302/149 I.P.C. sentencing the
appellant for life imprisonment and fine of
Rs. 20,000/- and in default of payment the
appellant shall undergo one year additional
imprisonment and all the sentences run
concurrently. Criminal Appeal No. 3104 of
398 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
2019, Lauki vs. State of U.P., 4 has been
filed against the judgment and order dated
25.07.2019 as well as 02.04.2021, passed
by the Additional Session Judge, Court No.
3, Mathura, in S.T. No. 344 of 2014 (State
vs. Hakim Singh & Anr.) convicting the
appellant under Section 148 I.P.C. and
sentencing the appellant for three years
rigorous imprisonment and imposed fine of
Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment the
appellant shall undergo three months
additional imprisonment, and under Section
302/149 I.P.C. sentencing the appellant for
life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 20,000/-
and in default of payment the appellant
shall
undergo
one
year
additional
imprisonment and all the sentences run
concurrently.

Jail Appeal No. 151 of 2019, Hakim
vs. State of U.P., has been filed against the
judgment and order dated 25.07.2019
passed by the Additional Session Judge,
Court No. 3, Mathura, in S.T. No. 344 of
2014 (State vs. Hakim Singh & Anr.)
convicting the appellant under Section 148
I.P.C. and sentencing the appellant for three
years rigorous imprisonment and imposed
fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of
payment the appellant shall undergo three
months additional imprisonment, and under
Section 302/149 I.P.C. sentencing the
appellant for life imprisonment and fine of
Rs. 20,000/- and in default of payment the
appellant shall undergo one year additional
imprisonment and all the sentences run
concurrently.

3.
 All
the
above
noted
bail
applications
arise
from
a
common
judgment and order, accordingly are being
heard and decided jointly.

4. Brief history of the prosecution
unfolds that the informant 5 Bacchu Singh,
lodged a First Information Report, being
Case Crime No. 5 of 2013, under Sections147, 148, 149, and 302 I.P.C., at Police
Station-Refinery,
District-Mathura,
on
06.01.2013 at 9.40 a.m. against the
appellants/applicants- Hakim Singh S/o
Girraj Singh, Lauki, Azad @ Ajju, Kishani,
Ravi and Hakim Singh S/o Niranjan Singh.
In the First Information Report it is alleged
that on 06.01.2013, informant's brotherSuresh Chandra, in the morning went to the
village to attend nature's call. Vikram s/o
deceased Suresh Chandra and his father
Lakkho, also followed him to attend
nature's call. His son Suresh Chandra
reached to the border line of the field,
wherein mustered crop was standing, where
all the accused were hiding and waiting for
the deceased, suddenly came out of the
crop field, and at around 8.30 a.m. they
started indiscriminate firing with illegal fire
arms, and they also assaulted the deceased
with blow of Farsa and knives, and on their
reaching, on the spot, all the accused fired
in air and fled away from the spot of
incident.

5. Informant and others, named
above, reached on the spot and found that
Suresh Chandra had succumbed to injuries.
In the First Information Report it is also
noted
that
the
dead
body
of
Sureshdeceased, was lying on the place of
occurrence and informant came to Police
Station to lodge the First Information
Report.
During
investigation
the
Investigating Officer collected plain and
blood stained soil and the same was sealed
separately at the place of occurrence on the
same day i.e. 06.01.2013 and also the
investigating Officer collected three empty
cartridges of .315 bore, and prepared
exhibit Ka-11, in the presence of the
witnesses. Inquest report, Pradarsh Ka-2, in
the presence of witnesses 6 (Panchan) was
10 All. Hakim Vs. State of U.P.
399
also got prepared to ascertain cause of
death of the deceased. The dead body,
along with police papers, was transmitted
to Mortuary for conducting the autopsy on
the dead body.

6. Dr. K.K. Gupta, on 06.01.2017
conducted the post mortem on body of the
deceased and prepared autopsy report, Ka7, accordingly. In autopsy report, there are
as many as five injuries on the person of
the deceased. Out of the injuries, injury
nos. 1 and 2 were of fire arm shot, whereas,
injury nos. 3 to 5 were found to have been
allegedly caused by sharp edged weapons
on the vital part of the body of the
deceased.

7. In the opinion of DoctorK.K.Gupta, the cause of death of the
deceased was ante mortem injuries due to
oozing of excessive blood from the body of
the deceased. 8. The investigating Officer
collected prima facie evidence under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. and submitted charge
sheet against all the named accused
persons/
appellants.
However,
during
investigation one of the accused/ appellant
Kishni could be arrested, whereas the other
accused/appellant/applicants,
namely
Hakim S/o late Girraj, Lauki, Hakim S/o
Niranjan, Ajai @ Ajju and Ravi absconded
and for ensuring their presence to record
their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
the
Investigating
Officer
got
their
properties attached and filed chalan against
accused Hakim Singh and four others,
during their absconding.

9. Under Sections 147, 148, 149 & 302
I.P.C. after receiving Challan against above
accused/appellants/applicants
and
other
relevant materials cognizance under Sections
190 (1) Cr.P.C. for 7 aforementioned offences
against all the accused/appellants/applicants,
was taken and then the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate committed criminal case to the
Court of District and Sessions Judge.

10.

In
the
mean
time,
accused/appellant/applicants Hakim and four
others surrendered before the Court and the
Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court
No. 7, Mathura, framed charges under
Sections 147, 148, and 302 read with Section
149 I.P.C., vide orders dated 12.06.2014 and
04.01.2014.
All
the
accused/appellant/applicants, on denial of
their charges, commenced trial for aforesaid
sections.

11. Prosecution produced informantP.W.-1-Bacchu Singh son of Lakkho, P.W.-2
Vikram, S/o deceased as witnesses of fact,
whereas, P.W.-3 to P.W.-7 are formal
witnesses. 12. On closure of the evidence on
behalf of the prosecution, statements of the
accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were
recorded. All the accused claimed themselves
innocent and also explained that in the instant
case they have been falsely roped in.

13. Accused Kishni and Hakim in their
statements stated that due to enmity Bacchu
and Vikram has given evidence against them
and their false implication as a result of
enmity with the informant and others.
However, Ajai @ Ajju, in his statement under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. has stated that he had no
enmity with the deceased, as such there was
no motive against him to commit such
incident nor there was any plausible reason
for his complicity in the crime and further
stated that on the advice of some villagers,
who want to sell his property, he has been
falsely implicated in this matter. 8

14. All the accused, except accused
Ajai @ Ajju, in their statements under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. had declined to adduce
400 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
evidence in their defence on behalf of the
co-accused. D.W.-1 Bhagwan Singh, has
been examined.

15. On the conclusion of trial, against all
the the accused persons, after considering the
entire evidence on record, learned Additional
Sessions Judge found clinching evidence
against all the accused/appellants under
Sections-147, 148, 302, read with 149 I.P.C.
and sentenced all the five accused/appellant as
noted above. 16. It is clarified that co-accused
Ravi on being found juvenile, on the date of
alleged occurrence, was tried before the
competent Court as his file was got separated
by the Court concerned vide order dated
27.07.2013, from the file of aforesaid five
accused, against whom the trial, before the
learned trial Court, stood concluded.

17. All the aforesaid bail applications are
taken together for their disposal by this
common order.

18.

On
behalf
of
the
accused/appellant/applicants it is submitted that
during the pendency of their appeals, before the
present Court, accused/appellant/applicants be
released on bail because the judgment and order
dated 25.07.2019 is not sustainable in the eyes
of law due to its perversity and the same is also
based on false assumptions and surmises and
not in the right perspective, the evidence on
record, has not been appreciated.

19. Learned counsel for the appellants
also submits that First Information Report is
anti time and having been lodged at the police
Station after post mortem of the body of the
deceased, as 9 such, the alleged incident was
not seen by the P.W.-1 Bacchu Singh and P.W.-
2 Vikram Singh as they were present at the time
of alleged occurrence of the incident; thus, FIR
was lodged at Police Station after the autopsy of
the dead body of the deceased had taken place.

20. In the opinion of P.W.-4, Dr. Gupta,
the time of death of the deceased was found 1/3
day old.

21.

Learned
counsel
for
the
accused/appellant/applicants have also taken us
to Post Mortem Report, exhibit-Ka 7, and
deposition of P.W.-4 Dr. Gupta and it has been
shown that only two fire arm shot injuries were
found on the body, whereas, the case of
prosecution
is
that
all
the
accused/appellant/applicants had fired with their
fire arm indiscriminately at the deceased;
specific role to the accused/appellant/ applicants
have also not been assigned; this also goes to
show that P.W.-1-Bacchu Singh and P.W.-2
Vikram Singh, were not present at the place of
occurrence.

22. It is also the contention of learned
counsel for the accused/appellant/applicants that
P.W.-4, Dr. Gupta, found only two fire arm
injuries on the body of the deceased whereas
P.W.-2 Vikram Singh has stated that three
accused were having Tamancha and in the first
information report it is alleged that all the
accused had fired indiscriminately with their
weapons at the deceased. As such, the
allegations levelled in the First Information
Report, depositions of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 are
motivated and not worthy of credit.

23. Out of the witnesses only P.W.-1,
Bacchu and P.W.-2 Vikram Singh, who are
brother and son of the deceased, respectively, it
is 10 urged that they being partisan and
interested, have been examined and for want of
corroboration of their testimonies by the
independent impartial witness/ witnesses, the
conviction
and
sentence
of
the
accused/appellant/applicants is bad and not
sustainable; moreover, not only their presence at
the place of occurrence is doubtful but their
testimonies are contradictory and inconsistent
with each other, are not reliable, and, by placing
10 All. Hakim Vs. State of U.P.
401
reliance upon them (P.W.-1 and P.W.-2), learned
lower Court has misled itself to err and the
standard to prove the prosecution case, set by
law, has not been met.

24. Next argument put forth on behalf of
the accused/appellant/applicants is that they are
detained in judicial custody and it is not certain
how many years their pending appeals would
see the light of the day.

25. Lastly, it is urged that the appellants
are entitled to bail. 26. Per contra, learned
A.G.A. vehemently opposes the submissions
advanced by the learned counsel for the
accused/appellant/applicants and submits that
P.W.-1 Bacchu Singh lodged the First
Information Report, Exhibit Ka-1, at Police
Station promptly and it is not essential for the
First Information Report to be an encyclopedia;
the allegations of the First Information Report
are substantiated by the cogent evidence on
record. He also submits that the First
Information Report is not anti time and the
contention pertaining to rigor mortis is not
tenable as the rigor mortis varies from person to
person. Moreover, he submits that these are
only hyper technical arguments and hold no
water.

27. Learned A.G.A. also contradicts the
contention of the learned 11 counsel for the
appellant/applicants by saying that in the village
it is normal practice that in the morning as per
their convenience villagers go, to attend nature's
call and even few persons together attend
nature's call but, it does not mean that they
excrete together at one place.

28. Learned A.G.A. also refutes the
contention of learned counsel for appellants
regarding the medical evidence that P.W.4, Dr.
K.K. Gupta, had found half of the bladder filled
hence the deceased before his death might have
eaten some eatable. He further drew our
attention to the evidence of P.W.-4, Dr. K.K.
Gupta, wherein he deposed that it is not a hard
and fast rule that the bladder of the deceased, if
found half, be assumed that deceased had eaten
some eatable just before his death.

29. Learned A.G.A. further states there is
no major inconsistencies so as to shift the place
of occurrence as depicted in the site plan by the
investigating officer and corroborated in oral
account of witnesses P.W.-1-Bacchu Singh and
P.W.-2 Vikram Singh. He submits there is just a
minor variance of few feets and therefore,
merely on such basis the place of occurrence
does not shift. Eventually, he argues that bail
applications be rejected.

30. We have perused carefully the
material placed on record and also heard
learned counsel and learned A.G.A., for both
the parties.

31. The First Information Report, exhibitKa-1, was lodged, by the informant Bacchu
Singh, at the concerned Police Station on
06.01.2013 at 9.40 a.m.; the distance from
alleged place of occurrence to concerned police
station is noted in the First 12 Information
Report Chik, Exhibit-Ka 8, as six kilometers,
whereas, P.W.-2, Dr. K.K. Gupta, states in his
testimony that the post mortem over the body of
the deceased was conducted on 06.01.2013 at
4.10 p.m.

32. P.W.-4, Dr. K.K. Gupta, has also noted
in the autopsy report Pradarsh-7Ka, the
proximate time of death of deceased was 1/3
day, meaning eight hours before the time of
autopsy. As such, as per Dr. K.K. Gupta, time of
death of deceased approximately is fixed at 8.10
a.m., whereas, in the First Information Report
P.W.-1 Bacchu Singh has stated the time of
occurrence around 8.30 a.m. P.W.-1, Bacchu
Singh and P.W.-2 Vikram Singh, have not been
cross examined on the point whether at the time
402 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of their alleged presence on the spot they had
worn wrist watch, nor these witnesses have
disclosed that at the time of occurrence any one
of them was wearing wrist watch. Considering
the material on record we are of the opinion that
time of death 8.30 a.m. was approximately
noted in the First Information Report, Pradarsh
Ka- 1.

33. As there is just a difference of a few
minutes about the proximate time of death of
the deceased in the alleged First Information
Report, Pradarsh-Ka-1 and in oral accounts of
two witnesses (P.W.-1 and P.W.-2) and also in
the deposition of P.W.- 4, therefore, we do not
find that the First Information Report is ante
time.

34. From perusal of the testimonies of
P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 it is found that their evidence
is trustworthy and also their presence in the
circumstances of the case was natural at the
place of 13 occurrence. Mere non production of
Lakkho, does not dismantle prosecution case.

35. In view of the decision of the
Supreme Court in Hari Obula Reddy v. State of
A.P., (1981) 3 SCC 675 & Jalpat Rai v. State of
Haryana, (2011) 14 SCC 208, the law is settled
that the testimony of an interested witness is not
necessarily unreliable and there is no invariable
rule that interested evidence can never form the
basis of conviction unless corroborated to a
material extent in material particulars by
independent evidence. What is required is that
testimony of such a witness should be subjected
to careful scrutiny. If, on such scrutiny, the
testimony is found to be intrinsically reliable or
inherently probable, it may, in the facts and
circumstances of a case, form the basis of
conviction.

36. Thus the contention of the learned
counsel that the evidence adduced by P.W.-1
Bacchu Singh and P.W.-2 Vikram Singh, be
thrown out is not tenable.

37. Hon'ble Apex Court in so many cases
has reiterated the legal settled position that the
testimony of a relative unless proved otherwise
cannot be discarded or disbelieved merely on
the basis of relation, as such their depositions
cannot be treated as unreliable.

38. As far as the contention on behalf of the
appellants regarding rigor mortis is concerned, we
are of the view that the incident is said to have
occurred on 06.01.2013 and the month of January,
in north India, is of acute cold and further the
deceased at the time of his unnatural death was
about 40 years. Generally rigor mortis in the dead
body of such an aged person, in the first week of
14 January, starts after three hours after death and
process takes about nine hours to complete and its
cycle is repeated in a period of further nine hours
to end. Recycle to complete the rigor mortis takes
further nine hours.

39. Perusal of Post Mortem Report shows
that column at serial no. 6A is blank and in this
connection P.W.-4 Dr. K.K. Gupta has not been
put to cross examination.

40. Hon'ble Apex Court has also
consistently laid down in plethora of cases that
from a witness of fact it is not expected to
remember nitty-gritty of alleged incident, it is
not necessary to assign specific weapon of
offence to each accused and to remember
number of shots and blows.

41. From the perusal of the record, it is
evident that the allegations of the First
Information Report find support not only from
the testimonies of eye witnesses P.W.-1 Bacchu
Singh and P.W.-2 Vikram Singh but also from
the medical evidence and other depositions of
the formal witnesses.
10 All. Naresh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
403

42. It is also pertinent to say that as far as
question of process of autopsy on the body of
the deceased is concerned, it is a scientific
examination to ascertain cause of death of the
deceased but the question regarding the
probable time of death in the autopsy report, is
merely an opinion of the Doctor, which falls
within the ambit of Section 45 of the Evidence
Act.

43. P.W.-4, Dr. K.K. Gupta, has himself
stated in his statement that the exact time of the
death cannot be fixed in the post mortem report;
time of death 1/3 day is proximate one.
Likewise, time of alleged incident in the First
Information Report is 15 proximate , because
the word ''Lagbhag' (about) has been noted in
the First Information Report.

44. Learned trial Court has given its
verdict with regard to conviction and sentence
in view of the material on record and at this
stage, we do not find the impugned judgment
and order is based on surmises or false
assumptions and the learned trial Court does not
appear to have erred in appreciation of evidence
on record.

45. With regard to final disposal of appeal
it is submitted that it will take time, we find this
submission as inconsequential because the
instant
appeals
on
behalf
of
the
appellants/applicants having been filed in the
year, 2019, considering the backlog of the
appeals in this Court, it is true that the disposal
of present appeals would take time but merely
because of above factor, the appellant/
applicants cannot be granted bail.

46.

Having
due
regard
to
the
aforementioned
discussion,
prosecution
evidence and manner in which the alleged
incident
has
occurred,
accused/appellant/
applicants have failed to persuade us to disagree
with the trial Court judgment and order that it is
perverse and suffers from illegalities in the
findings arrived at by the learned trial court.
Thus, we do not find the accused/appellant/
applicants entitled to obtain bail, as such, all the
aforesaid bail applications, as well as, Jail
Appeal No. 151 of 2019, are liable to be
rejected and is accordingly rejected.

Order on Appeal

Office to prepare Paper book, if not
prepared.

List this appeal on its turn.
----------
(2022) 10 ILRA 403
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

Crl. Appeal No. 7516 of 2017

Naresh & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opp. Party

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Rajendra Kumar, Sri Bhagwan Singh Yadav,
Sri Mahesh Prasad Yadav, Sri Shiv Badan, Sri Raj
Kumar Sharma

Counsel for the Opp. Party:
G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 - Sections 313 & 374 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 299, 300,
302, 304-B, 304 part - I & 304 part - II -
Dowry Prohibition Act,1961 - Section -
3/4 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section -
32 : - Criminal Appeal - Conviction & Sentence -
Life imprisonment - quantum of punishment -
offence of murder - FIR - informant alleged that
his daughter was married with accused husband
two year ago whom along with his parents