# Israr Khan v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 10 ILRA 106
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-10-12
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1267 of 2020
- **Bench:** Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/israr-khan-v-state-of-u-p-anr-49259
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 302, 364, 201 & 34 - Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(2)(v)
-
Criminal
Procedure Code,
1973
-
Sections 14-A(2), 374(2), 437(3), 82, 174A, 229-A & 309 - Bail Application -
Circumstantial
Evidence
-
False
Implication - Prolonged Detention - The
appellant, Israr Khan, challenged the order
dated 10.12.2020 by the Special Judge (SC/ST
Act)/Additional
Sessions
Judge,
Bahraich,
rejecting his bail application in Case Crime No.
170 of 2020 under Sections 364, 302, 201, 34
IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, Police
Station Matera, Bahraich.

Held: (1) The appeal was allowed, the
impugned order was set aside, and the
appellant was granted bail with conditions. (2)
The FIR was initially lodged against unknown
persons for the kidnapping of the complainant's
12-year-old son, Ved Prakash Chaudhary, on
29.10.2020, and the boy's body was later found
with injuries, including a lacerated wound,
incised wound, crush injuries, and contusions,
with the postmortem confirming death by
asphyxia due to ante-mortem injuries. (3) The
appellant's implication was based on the
confessional St.ment of co-accused Kaleem and
St.ments of interested witnesses (Mata Prasad
and Pradeep, relatives of the deceased), who
only saw the appellant with the deceased but
did not confirm his presence or involvement in
the murder. (4) No independent witness
confirmed the appellant's role in the murder,
and no incriminating articles were recovered
from him; the recovered danda was not
specifically linked to the appellant, and the cycle
recovery violated Section 100 Cr.P.C. and lacked
10 All. Israr Khan Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
107
Section 27 Evidence Act compliance. (5) The
prosecution's case relied on circumstantial
evidence with a broken chain, failing to
conclusively connect the appellant to the crime,
as per Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs St. of Mah..
(6) Co-accused Tahira, Aaysha, Rabiya Begam,
and Hasan Mohammad, with similar roles, were
granted bail, and the appellant's case was not
distinguishable, with motive attributed to coaccused Kaleem and recoveries linked to coaccused Rabiya. (7) The appellant, detained
since 01.11.2020, had undergone substantial
detention with no likelihood of an early trial
conclusion due to court pendency, aligning with
Kamal Vs St. of Har. and Takht Singh Vs St. of
M.P.. (8) The court found no evidence
suggesting the appellant would tamper with
evidence, and considering Article 21 of the
Constitution, bail was granted with conditions,
including
personal
and
surety
bonds,
cooperation with the trial, and prohibitions on
tampering or committing similar offenses. (9)
The trial court was directed to expedite the trial
under Section 309 Cr.P.C. without unnecessary
adjournments.

Case Law Cited:

## Text

106 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
should not be drawn only by picking up a
single sentence of the statement of a
witness. Thus the trial court has overlooked
the material evidence available on record
with regard to guilt of accused and to that
extent conclusion drawn by the trial Court
suffers with patent infirmity and perversity
and therefore, liable to be reversed and set
aside.

34. Thus in view of above, after
analysis of circumstances of present case
in the light of aforesaid settled legal
principles, I come to the conclusion that
the trial court has erred passing the
impugned judgment and order, therefore,
this appeal succeeds and is allowed. The
judgment and order dated 26.03.2010
passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge / Fast Track Court, Room No.VI,
Lucknow in Sessions Trial No.1216 of
1999, Crime No.77/1998, Police Station
Thakurganj, District Lucknow (State Vs.
Nankau & Another) is set aside and
reversed.
The
appellants,
namely,
appellant no.1 Nankau and appellant no.2
are acquitted of charges under Sections
323, 504, 506(2) I.P.C. and Section
3(1)(X) of S.C./S.T. Act. Their personal
bonds and surety bonds are canceled and
sureties are discharged.

35. Let record of lower Court be sent
back to Court concerned along with copy
of judgment and order for information.
----------
(2023) 10 ILRA 106
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 12.10.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1267 of 2020
Israr Khan ..Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Manoj Kumar Singh, Brij Mohan Sahai

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Ashish Raman Mishra, Sandeep
Singh

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 302, 364, 201 & 34 - Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(2)(v)
-
Criminal
Procedure Code,
1973
-
Sections 14-A(2), 374(2), 437(3), 82, 174A, 229-A & 309 - Bail Application -
Circumstantial
Evidence
-
False
Implication - Prolonged Detention - The
appellant, Israr Khan, challenged the order
dated 10.12.2020 by the Special Judge (SC/ST
Act)/Additional
Sessions
Judge,
Bahraich,
rejecting his bail application in Case Crime No.
170 of 2020 under Sections 364, 302, 201, 34
IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, Police
Station Matera, Bahraich.

Held: (1) The appeal was allowed, the
impugned order was set aside, and the
appellant was granted bail with conditions. (2)
The FIR was initially lodged against unknown
persons for the kidnapping of the complainant's
12-year-old son, Ved Prakash Chaudhary, on
29.10.2020, and the boy's body was later found
with injuries, including a lacerated wound,
incised wound, crush injuries, and contusions,
with the postmortem confirming death by
asphyxia due to ante-mortem injuries. (3) The
appellant's implication was based on the
confessional St.ment of co-accused Kaleem and
St.ments of interested witnesses (Mata Prasad
and Pradeep, relatives of the deceased), who
only saw the appellant with the deceased but
did not confirm his presence or involvement in
the murder. (4) No independent witness
confirmed the appellant's role in the murder,
and no incriminating articles were recovered
from him; the recovered danda was not
specifically linked to the appellant, and the cycle
recovery violated Section 100 Cr.P.C. and lacked
10 All. Israr Khan Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
107
Section 27 Evidence Act compliance. (5) The
prosecution's case relied on circumstantial
evidence with a broken chain, failing to
conclusively connect the appellant to the crime,
as per Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs St. of Mah..
(6) Co-accused Tahira, Aaysha, Rabiya Begam,
and Hasan Mohammad, with similar roles, were
granted bail, and the appellant's case was not
distinguishable, with motive attributed to coaccused Kaleem and recoveries linked to coaccused Rabiya. (7) The appellant, detained
since 01.11.2020, had undergone substantial
detention with no likelihood of an early trial
conclusion due to court pendency, aligning with
Kamal Vs St. of Har. and Takht Singh Vs St. of
M.P.. (8) The court found no evidence
suggesting the appellant would tamper with
evidence, and considering Article 21 of the
Constitution, bail was granted with conditions,
including
personal
and
surety
bonds,
cooperation with the trial, and prohibitions on
tampering or committing similar offenses. (9)
The trial court was directed to expedite the trial
under Section 309 Cr.P.C. without unnecessary
adjournments.

Case Law Cited:

1. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs St. of Mah.,
1984 Cri. L.J. 178;

2. Kamal Vs St. of Har., 2004 (13) SCC 526;

3. Takht Singh Vs St. of M.P., 2001 (10) SCC
463.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.)

1. Heard Sri Brij Mohan Sahai,
learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Sri
Ashish Kumar Dubey, Advocate, for the
appellant; Sri Ashish Raman Mishra,
learned counsel for the opposite party no.2
as well as Sri Ashok Srivastava, learned
A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire
record.

2. This Criminal Appeal under
Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes &
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act has been preferred against the
impugned order dated 10.12.2020 passed
by
learned
Special
Judge(S.C./S.T.
Act)/Addl. Sessions Judge, Bahraich, in
Bail Application No. 1827/12A/2020, Case
Crime No. 170 of 2020, under Sections
364, 302, 201, 34 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v)
of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Matera,
District
Bahraich,
whereby
the
bailapplication of the appellant has been
rejected.

3. Sri B.M. Sahai, learned counsel for
the appellant submits that the firstinformation-report dated 29.10.2020 had
been lodged against unknown persons
under Section 363 of I.P.C., stating that on
the said date, i.e. on 29.10.2020, at about 7
a.m. the informant's son Ved Prakash
Chaudhary, aged about 12 years, who was
studying in Class-V, had gone to coaching,
but he did not return home. Thereafter, the
complainant searched the son, but he could
not find his whereabouts and thereafter he
lodged a missing report before the Police.

4. It is further argued by the learned
counsel for the appellant Sri B.K. Sahai
that after loding of the first-informationreport dead-body of the missing son of the
complainant Ved Prakash Chaudhary was
recovered.
Thereafter
the
inquestproceedings
on
his
dead-body
were
conducted on 20.10.2020 on 8.05 hrs. The
dead-body of the son of the complainant
was found in a yellow bag on the instance
of one informer, who is father of the first
informant and who was also grandfather of
the deceased, and at the time of inquestproceedings one injury was found on the
head of the deceased. Thereafter, the
postmortem of the deceased was conducted
on 31.10.2020 at 12:35 p.m. and as per the
postmortem report the injuries are: one
lacerated wound on the right side of
108 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
temporal region; incised would on left side
of temporal region and crush injuries were
present on the forehead; contused swelling
on the right side of the face and abrason
mark was present in front of neck. As per
postmortem report and the opinion of the
Doctor, the cause of death is Asphyxia due
to ante-mortem injury and the time of death
is shown as one day prior. Thereafter the
appellant was arrested on 1.11.2020. After
recording the statement of the prosecution
witnesses, the Investigating Officer filed
the chargesheet against five persons,
including the present appellant.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant
further submits that the appellant has been
falsely implicated in the present case due to
ulterior motive, whereas in fact he was not
present on the spot. The first-informationreport has been lodged against unknown
persons. It has further been submitted that
the name of the present appellant surfaced
on the confessional statement of the main
accused, namely Kaleem, and on the
statement of the uncle of the deceased
namely Mata Prasad and Pradeep, who
were also the interested witnesses of the
case. They have only stated that they have
seen the appellant accompanying the
deceased, but have not made statement that
at the time of the alleged incident the
appellant was present with the deceased or
the appellant had committed the murder. It
is also case of the learned counsel for the
appellant that there is no independent
witness, who had made the statement that
the appellant had committed the alleged
murder.

6. It was further submitted that no
incriminating article has been recovered
from possession or pointing of the
appellant. Only one danda was shown to be
recovered by the Police only with the
intention to give gravity to the alleged
offence, but that danda does not belong to
the appellant. All the accused persons are
said to have used danda and it is also the
case of the prosecution that all the named
accused persons were shown holding danda
in their hand, but the allegation against the
appellant is not specified. It is further
submitted that the alleged recovery of cycle
of the deceased is against the provision of
Section 100 Cr.P.C. It was not made under
Section 27 of the Evidence Act. There is no
statement recorded with regard to the
recovery of the alleged cycle, which was
owned by the deceased. It is also argued
that as per the prosecution case, motive has
been assigned to the co-accused Kaleem. It
is further submitted that the books of the
deceased, one danda and one Salwar pooled
with blood stained has recoved on the
pointing out of the co-accused, namely,
Rabiya.

7. Several other submissions have
also been brought forth before this Court
regarding illegality and infirmity of the
prosecution case and has also been
highlighed before this Court that the
appellant is in detention since 1.11.2020
and he has already undergone a substantial
period of detention. In support of his
contention,
learned
counsel
for
the
applicant has placed reliance of Hon'ble
Apex Court judgment in the case of Kamal
Vs. State of Haryana, 2004 (13) SCC 526
and submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court
was pleased to observe in paragraph no. 2
of the judgment as under :-

"2. This is a case in which the
appellant has been convicted u/s 304-B of
the India Penal Code and sentenced to
imprisonment for 7 years. It appears that
so far the appellant has undergone
imprisonment for about 2 years and four
10 All. Israr Khan Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
109
months. The High Court declined to grant
bail pending disposal of the appeal before
it. We are of the view that the bail should
have been granted by the High Court,
especially having regard to the fact that the
appellant has already served a substantial
period
of
the
sentence.
In
the
circumstances, we direct that the bail be
granted to the appellant on conditions as
may be imposed by the District and
Sessions Judge, Faridabad."

8. Learned counsel for the applicant
has also placed reliance of Hon'ble Apex
Court judgment in the case of Takht Singh
Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2001 (10)
SCC 463, and submitted that the Hon'ble
Apex Court was pleased to observe in
paragraph no. 2 of the judgment as under:-

"2. The appellants have been
convicted under Section 302/149, Indian
Penal Code by the learned Sessions Judge
and have been sentenced to imprisonment
for life. Against the said conviction and
sentence their appeal to the High Court is
pending. Before the High Court application
for suspension of sentence and bail was
filed but the High Court rejected that
prayer
indicating
therein
that
the
applicants can renew their prayer for bail
after one year. After the expiry of one year
the second application was filed but the
same has been rejected by the impugned
order. It is submitted that the appellants are
already in jail for over 3 years and 3
months. There is no possibility of early
hearing of the appeal in the High Court. In
the aforesaid circumstances the applicants
be released on bail to the satisfaction of the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sehore.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly."

9. Sri B.M. Sahai, learned counsel for
the appellant submits that the ratio of the
above cited judgments is also applicable in
the case of the present appellant and, thus,
the case of the appellant be considered by
this Court sympathetically and the present
appeal be alowed and the judgment and
order, impugned herein, be reversed and set
aside and the appellant be released on bail.

10. It has also been submitted by the
learned counsel for the appellant that the
co-accused, namely Tahira, Aaysha, Rabiya
Begam and Hasan Mohammad, who were
also assigned almost identical role as that
of the present appellant, have already been
granted bail by Coordinate Benches of this
Court vide orders dated 2.2.2022, 4.3.2022,
27.7.2022 and 4.8.2022 passed in Criminal
Appeal Nos. 22 of 2021, 50 of 2021, 1263
of 2020 and 846 of 2021. The case of the
present appellant is not on the worst footing
than that of the aforesaid co-accused, who
have been granted bail by Coordinate
Benches of this Court and the case of the
appellant is totally distinguishable from the
case of the co-accused Kaleem. It has also
been submitted that the appellant has no
previous previous criminal anticident. This
fact has been stated in para No. 35 of the
affidavit filed in support of the bailapplication.

11. Learned counsel for the applicant
while placing reliance upon the judgment
of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of
Maharshtra : 1984 Cri. L.J. 178 has
argued
that
no
one
had
seen
the
commission
of
crime,
there
is
no
connecting link to indicate the involvement
of applicant in the commission of crime, it
is a case of circumstantial evidence and the
chain of evidence is totally broken, the
police has also failed to complete the chain
of evidence to connect the applicant in the
present crime. He further submits that the
110 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
applicant is not involved in the present
crime, thus he should be released on bail.

12. Several other submissions in order
to demonstrate the illegality and infirmity
of the prosecution case have also been
placed forth before the Court. The
circumstances which, according to the
counsel, led to the false implication of the
accused have also been touched upon at
length. It has been assured on behalf of the
appellant that he is ready to cooperate with
the process of law and shall faithfully make
himself available before the court whenever
required and is also ready to accept all the
conditions which the Court may deem fit to
impose upon him. It has also been pointed
out that the accused is not having any
criminal history and he is in jail since
01.11.2020 and he has already undergone a
substantial period of detention and that in
the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the
Court, there is no likelihood of any early
conclusion of trial.

13. Per contra, Sri Ashish Raman
Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite
party No. 2 has submitted that the
involvement of the appellant is there in the
commission of the crime alongwith other
co-accused. He also submitted that the coaccused, who have already been granted
bail, their case is distinguishable from the
case of the present appellant. The appellant
was lastly seen in the company of the
deceased. Several injuries were found on
the body of the deceased, and the recovery
of danda is from possession of the present
appellant, thus, he submits that the
involvement of the present appellant is very
much clear in the commission of the crime,
thus, the order passed by the Court below is
justified and the present criminal appeal is
liable to be rejected and the appellant is not
entitled to be released on bail.

14. Sri Ashok Srivastava, learned
A.G.A. has also made an agreement with
the argument advanced by the learned
counsel for the opposite party No. 2, who
has submitted that the appellant is not
entitled to get any relief.

15. After perusing the record in the
light of the submissions made at the bar
and after taking an overall view of all the
facts and circumstances of this case, the
nature of evidence, the period of detention
already undergone, the unlikelihood of
early conclusion of trial and also in the
absence of any convincing material to
indicate the possibility of tampering with
the evidence, there appears force in the
arguments of the learned counsel for the
appellant; and considering the fact that the
appellant is said to be not present on the
spot; the first-information-report has been
lodged against unknown persons; name of
the present appellant has surfaced on the
confessional statement of the main accused,
namely Kaleem, and on the statement of
the uncle of the deceased namely Mata
Prasad and Pradeep, who are also the
interested witnesses of the case, however,
they have only stated that they have seen
the appellant accompanying the deceased,
but have not made statement that at the
time of the alleged incident the appellant
was present with the deceased or the
appellant had committed the murder; there
also appears force in the arguments of the
learned counsel for the appellant that there
is no independent eye-witness, who had
made the statement that the appellant had
committed
the
alleged
murder;
no
incriminating article has been recovered
from possession or pointing of the
appellant; only one danda was shown to be
recovered by the Police only with the
intention to give gravity to the alleged
offence, but that danda does not belong to
10 All. Israr Khan Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
111
the appellant; all the accused persons are
said to have used danda and the case of the
prosecution that all the named accused
persons were shown holding danda in their
hand, but the allegation against the
appellant is not specified; no one had seen
the commission of crime, there is no
connecting link to indicate the involvement
of applicant in the commission of crime, it
is a case of circumstantial evidence and the
chain of evidence is totally broken, the
police has also failed to complete the chain
of evidence to connect the applicant in the
present crime; further, there appears force
in the arguments of the learned counsel for
the appellant that the alleged recovery of
cycle of the deceased is against the
provision of Section 100 Cr.P.C. It was not
made under Section 27 of the Evidence
Act; there is no statement recorded with
regard to the recovery of the alleged cycle,
which was owned by the deceased; motive
has been assigned to the co-accused
Kaleem; books of the deceased, one danda
and one Salwar pooled with blood stained
have been recoved on the pointing out of
the co-accused, namely, Rabiya; and further
co-accused, Tahira, Aaysha, Rabiya Begam
and Hasan Mohammad have been enlarged
on bail on the same allegations, and further
considering the larger mandate of the
Article 21 of the Constitution of India and
the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand
Sarda (supra), Kamal (supra) and Takht
Singh (Supra) this Court is of the view
that the learned court below has failed to
appreciate the material available on record.
The order passed by the court below is
liable to be set aside.

16. Accordingly, the appeal is
allowed.
Consequently,
the impugned
judgment and order dated 10.12.2020
passed by learned Special Judge(S.C./S.T.
Act)/Addl. Sessions Judge, Bahraich, in
Bail Application No. 1827/12A/2020, Case
Crime No. 170 of 2020, under Sections
364, 302, 201, 34 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v)
of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Matera,
District Bahraich, is hereby set aside and
reversed.

17. Let the appellant, Israr Khan be
released on bail in the Case Crime No. 170
of 2020, under Sections 364, 302, 201, 34
I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of S.C./S.T. Act,
Police Station Matera, District Bahraich,
with the following conditions:-

(i) The appellant shall furnish a
personal bond with two sureties each of
like amount to the satisfaction of the court
concerned.

(ii) The appellant shall appear and
strictly comply following terms of bond
executed under section 437 sub section 3 of
Chapter- 33 of Cr.P.C.:-

(a) The appellant shall attend in
accordance with the conditions of the bond
executed under this Chapter.

(b) The appellant shall not
commit an offence similar to the offence of
which he is accused, or suspected, of the
commission of which he is suspected, and

(c) The appellant shall not
directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted
with the facts of the case so as to dissuade
him from disclosing such facts to the Court
or to any police officer or tamper with the
evidence.

(iii) The appellant shall cooperate
with investigation /trial.

(iv) The appellant shall file an
undertaking to the effect that he shall not
seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for
evidence when the witnesses are present in
court. In case of default of this condition, it
shall be open for the trial court to treat it as
112 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in
accordance with law.

(v) The appellant shall remain
present before the trial court on each date
fixed, either personally or through his
counsel. In case of his absence, the trial
court may proceed against him under
Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(vi) In case, the appellant misuses
the liberty of bail during trial, in order to
secure his presence, proclamation under
section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the
appellant fails to appear before the court on
the date fixed in such proclamation, then,
the trial court shall initiate proceedings
against him, in accordance with law, under
Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(vii) The appellant shall remain
present, before the trial court on the dates
fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii)
framing of charge and (iii) recording of
statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in
the opinion of the trial court absence of the
appellant is deliberate or without sufficient
cause, then it shall be open for the trial
court to treat such default as abuse of
liberty of bail and proceed against him in
accordance with law.

18. The trial court is also directed to
expedite the trial of the aforesaid case by
following the provisions of Section 309
Cr.P.C., strictly without granting any
unnecessary adjournments to the parties, in
case there is no other legal impediment.

19.

The
observation
made
hereinabove are confined only to disposal
of this bail-application and have nothing to
do with the merits of the case.
----------
(2023) 10 ILRA 112
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.10.2023
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH
KESARWANI, J.
THE HON'BLE MS. NAND PRABHA SHUKLA,
J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1483 of 1984

Kali Prasad Misra & Anr. ..Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Satish Trivedi, Sri Manoj Kumar Singh,
Sri P.K. Singh

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A., Sri Saurabh Chaturvedi, Sri Amresh
Singh, Sri I.K. Chaturvedi (Sr. Advocate).

Criminal Law -Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 299, 300, 302/34, 304 Part II -
The incident arose from a family dispute over a
jointly owned grove, where the appellants, Kali
Prasad Misra (aged 19) and Sheo Shankar Misra
(aged 22, deceased during appeal), nephews of
the deceased, requested him to attend a
panchayat. On his refusal, a sudden quarrel led
to the appellants striking the deceased with
lathis, causing fatal head injuries. The High
Court found no premeditation or intent to kill, as
the assault occurred in the heat of passion
during a brief altercation (lasting two minutes).
Relying on Virsa Singh, Anbazhagan, and Jugut
Ram, the court held that the appellants' actions
fell under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, as the
lathi blows were not cruel or excessive, and the
appellants did not take undue advantage.
Conviction under Section 302/34 IPC altered to
Section 304 Part II IPC for culpable homicide
not amounting to murder, as the appellants had
knowledge that their acts were likely to cause
death but lacked intent. Kali Prasad Misra
sentenced to 7 years' rigorous imprisonment
and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh, payable to the
deceased's wife or legal heir, with an additional
year of imprisonment on default. Appeal qua
Sheo Shankar Misra abated due to his death.
Bail of Kali Prasad Misra cancelled, and he was
ordered
into
custody.