# Jabir & Ors v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2016) 7 ILRA 534
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-07-12
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1255 of 2013
- **Bench:** Om Prakash-Vii
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jabir-ors-v-state-of-u-p-44124
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Appeals under Section 374 Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order dated 12.03.2013 passed by the Additional
District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Ballia in Session Trial No. 96 of 1999 (State of U.P. vs. Murtaza &
Others), whereby the appellants were convicted under Sections 147, 148, 307, 333, 336, 504, 506 IPC read
with Section 149 IPC and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and sentenced to various terms of
imprisonment with fine.

Headnotes:
7 All. Jabir & Ors. Vs State Of U.P.
535
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 148, 307, 333, 336, 504, 506 read with 149 - Criminal Law
Amendment Act, Section 7 -

Benefit of doubt - Suppression of genesis of occurrence - Failure to prove motive - Nonproduction of documentary evidence relating to earlier crime - Contradictions in medical
evidence - Conviction unsustainable.
Where the prosecution case rested upon the alleged presence of police personnel at the place of occurrence
in connection with another crime (Crime No. 45 of 1999), but no documentary evidence was produced to
substantiate registration or particulars of such crime, and material contradictions existed regarding arrest of
accused, time of medical examination and preparation of injury reports, and where the alleged weapons were
not produced before the Court, the prosecution was held to have suppressed the origin and genesis of the
occurrence.
Merely because the injured witnesses were police personnel, their testimony could not be discarded; however,
in absence of credible corroboration and in view of material inconsistencies, the prosecution failed to establish
guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Reliance placed on Kailash Gour v. State of Assam, wherein it was held that benefit arising from faulty
investigation must go to the accused.
The trial court erred in holding that motive and manner of occurrence were proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Result:
Both Criminal Appeal No. 1401 of 2013 and Criminal Appeal No. 1255 of 2013 Allowed.
Conviction and sentence dated 12.03.2013 set aside.
Appellants Jakir, Kadir, Jabir and Shivnath Singh acquitted of all charges.
Bail bonds cancelled. Accused in custody directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.

Case Law Discussed:
Kailash Gour v. State of Assam

## Text

534 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

equal strength wants to take a different view, it can only refer the matter to a larger bench,
otherwise the prior decision of a co-ordinate bench is binding on the subsequent bench of equal
strength. Since, the decision in S.N. Narula's case (supra) was not noticed in T.V. Patel's case
(supra), the latter decision is a judgment per incuriam. The decision in S.N. Narula's case (supra)
was binding on the subsequent bench of equal strength and hence, it could not take a contrary
view, as is settled by a series of judgments of this Court."

9. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and also the
law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases cited by the learned counsel for the
petitioner and find that opposite parties have not supplied the copy of the advice of the Public
Service Commission, which is in violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, we are of the
view that the punishment order on account of aforesaid fault cannot sustain. The petitioner has
already attained the age of 82 years. In these circumstances, we allow the writ petition and set the
impugned order of punishment directing the opposite parties to release all the post retiral dues
including the revised pension to the petitioner.
----------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.07.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE OM PRAKASH-VII, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1401 Of 2013
&
Criminal Appeal No. 1255 of 2013

Jabir & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Rajesh Kumar Pal, P.K. Singh, Yogesh Kumar Singh, Rajiv Gupta, Dileep Kumar, Rajrshi Gupta, Shristi Gupta

Counsel for the Respondent:
Govt. Advocate, Shri Z.K. Hasan, A.G.A.

Procedural History:
Appeals under Section 374 Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order dated 12.03.2013 passed by the Additional
District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Ballia in Session Trial No. 96 of 1999 (State of U.P. vs. Murtaza &
Others), whereby the appellants were convicted under Sections 147, 148, 307, 333, 336, 504, 506 IPC read
with Section 149 IPC and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and sentenced to various terms of
imprisonment with fine.

Headnotes:
7 All. Jabir & Ors. Vs State Of U.P.
535
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 148, 307, 333, 336, 504, 506 read with 149 - Criminal Law
Amendment Act, Section 7 -

Benefit of doubt - Suppression of genesis of occurrence - Failure to prove motive - Nonproduction of documentary evidence relating to earlier crime - Contradictions in medical
evidence - Conviction unsustainable.
Where the prosecution case rested upon the alleged presence of police personnel at the place of occurrence
in connection with another crime (Crime No. 45 of 1999), but no documentary evidence was produced to
substantiate registration or particulars of such crime, and material contradictions existed regarding arrest of
accused, time of medical examination and preparation of injury reports, and where the alleged weapons were
not produced before the Court, the prosecution was held to have suppressed the origin and genesis of the
occurrence.
Merely because the injured witnesses were police personnel, their testimony could not be discarded; however,
in absence of credible corroboration and in view of material inconsistencies, the prosecution failed to establish
guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Reliance placed on Kailash Gour v. State of Assam, wherein it was held that benefit arising from faulty
investigation must go to the accused.
The trial court erred in holding that motive and manner of occurrence were proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Result:
Both Criminal Appeal No. 1401 of 2013 and Criminal Appeal No. 1255 of 2013 Allowed.
Conviction and sentence dated 12.03.2013 set aside.
Appellants Jakir, Kadir, Jabir and Shivnath Singh acquitted of all charges.
Bail bonds cancelled. Accused in custody directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.

Case Law Discussed:
Kailash Gour v. State of Assam

(Delivered by Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII, J.)

1. Since these criminal appeals have been heard at length and are being decided by a
common judgment and order on merits, the Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No. 47366 of
2014 filed on behalf of the applicants/appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 1401 of 2013 has become
infructuous and the same is dismissed as having become infructuous.

2. Now the court proceeds to decide the present criminal appeals.

3. These criminal appeals have been preferred by the accused/ appellants against the
judgement and order dated 12.3.2013 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court
No.3, Ballia in Session Trial No. 96 of 1999 (State of U.P. vs. Murtaza and others) convicting and
sentencing the appellants Jakir and Kadir for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 307, 333,
336/149, 504, 506 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and fine was also imposed. Appellants
Jabir and Shivnath Singh were convicted and sentenced for the offence under Sections 147,
307/149, 333/149, 336, 504, 506 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act as also fine. All the
sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
536 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

4. Since these criminal appeals have been filed against the same judgement and order, the
same have been heard together and are being decided by a common judgment.

5. The facts of the case, as unfolded by the informant Devendra Dhar Dwivedi, SubInspector, Police Station, Phephna in the First Information Report (in short 'F.I.R.'), are that on
16.3.1999 at about 22.30 p.m. the informant alongwith the police personnel, namely, constable 839
Ranjeet Singh, constable 540 Krishnanand Tiwari, constable 151 Rajesh Yadav, constable 744
Irshad Ahmad and constable 128 Dev Vrat Tiwari had gone to the house of accused Murtaza, who
was wanted in case crime no. 45 of 1999, under Sections 457, 380 IPC, to trace/ search the accused
Murtaza as also for looted property. As and when, on the road before the house of Murtaza, they
were making enquiry about Murtaza, all of sudden, Murtaza son of Shakoor, Kadir son of Murtaza
armed with farsa and Zakir son of Murtaza having bricks and stick and the neighbour Shivnath
Singh son of late Ramdev Singh having bricks in his hand came out exhorting from the house of
Murtaza, and hurling abuses said to kill the police personnel since they had arrested Nazir son of
Murtaza in a case of theft. The informant and his companions withdrew themselves from the said
place and came at the cemented road. In the meantime, they (accused persons), pelting the stone
indiscriminately, began to beat the police personnel. The police personnel began to hide themselves
with a view to escape from injury. All the above five persons, surrounding the constable Dev Vrat
Tiwari with intention to kill, began to beat him. Murtaza, Kadir and Zakir with intention to kill him
on his head and face beaten badly with sharp edged weapon due to which he received serious
injuries and was fainted. When alarm was made, people rushed towards the place of incident and a
voice also came towards police station, then the accused persons spared Dev Vrat Tiwari. He was
serious. Police personnel had also received injuries of bricks and stone. Accused were habitual
criminal and they threatened to kill the police personnel. They also exhorted that in future police
personnel will not be spared. The above persons (accused) knowingly created hindrance in official
work and caused injuries to the government servant. Jabir and Murtaza were apprehended and
brought to the police station explaining the reasons for their arrest for the offence under Section
380/457 IPC and 4/25 Arms Act from the place of incident.

6. On the basis of the said written report (Ext. Ka-1), Chik - First Information Report (in
short 'FIR') was registered on the same day at 22.45 hours at the concerned Police Station at Crime
No. 46/99 under Sections 147, 148, 307, 333, 336, 504, 506 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment
Act. G.D. Entry (Ext. ka-6) was also made.

7. Injured Krishna Nand Tiwari was medically examined on 17.3.1999 at 5.30 p.m.
Following injuries were found on his body:

"1. Red scabed abrasion 3 cm x 2 cm on the upper aspect of front of left
shoulder joint.

2. Redish bluish contusion 3 cm x 2 cm on the lateral aspect of Rt arm in
middle.
7 All. Jabir & Ors. Vs State Of U.P.
537

3. Redish bluish faint contusion 4 cm x 2.5 cm on the upper aspect of left gluteal
region.

4. Swelling 4 cm x 3 cm on the right back of Rt arm above the Rt elbow."

8. According to the doctor, injuries were simple in nature.

9. Injured Rajesh Yadav was medically examined on 17.3.1999 at 5.15 p.m. Following
injuries were found on his body:

"1. Redish blue contusion 4 cm x 2.5 cm on the lateral aspect of Rt forearm 10
cm below the Rt elbow joint.

2. Redish blue contusion 6 cm x 3 cm on the lateral aspect of left arm 7 cm
about the left elbow joint.

3. Redish blue faint contusion 4 cm x 3 cm on the lateral aspect of Rt leg 15 cm
below the Rt knee joint."

10. According to the doctor, injuries were simple in nature.

11. Injured Dev Vrat Tiwari was medically examined on 16.3.1999 at 11.50 a.m. Following
injuries were found on his body:

"1. Incised wound 6 cm x 0.75 cm muscle deep on the Rt cheek about 1 cm in
front of the R Ear. Fresh blood oozing.

2. Incised wound 5 cm x 0.75 cm x bone deep on the left side of the forehead
above the L eyebrow - fresh blood.

3. Incised wound 2.5 cm x 0.5 cm x bone deep on the back side of occipital
region of the skull - fresh blood.

4. Incised wound 1 cm x 0.2 cm x muscle deep - fresh blood on the middle
phalanx of the left middle finger.

5. Incised wound 0.75 cm x 0.1 cm x muscle deep on the tarmental phalanx of
the left index finger.

6. Incised wound 3 cm x 0.5 cm x bone deep on the R parietal region of the skull
about 10 cm above the R ear - fresh blood."
538 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

12. Injuries were kept under observation. According to the Doctor, the injuries were caused
by sharp object end.

13. Station Officer, P.S. Phephna proceeded to investigate the matter. He copied the chick
FIR and G.D. in the case diary and also recorded statement of chik writer as well as the accused
Murtaza and Zakir. He inspected the spot and prepared the site plan (Ext. ka-7) showing all the
details in it. He also made search of accused persons. He also recorded statement of other witnesses
on different dates.

14. After completing the investigation, charge-sheets (Ext. ka-9-10) against all the accused
appellants were filed. Concerned Magistrate took the cognizance. The case being exclusively
triable by the sessions court, was committed to the Court of sessions.

15. Accused/appellants appeared and charge under Sections 148, 307, 333, 504, 506,
336/149 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act was framed in the trial court against Murtaza,
Zakir and Kadir and under Sections 147, 307/149, 333/149, 504, 506, 336 IPC and 7 Criminal Law
Amendment Act was framed against Jabir and Shivnath Singh. All the accused pleaded not guilty
and claimed their trial.

16. Trial proceeded and in order to prove its case, the prosecution examined ten witnesses,
wherein PW-1 C.P. Ranjeet Singh, PW-2 Constable 128 Dev Vrat Tiwari, PW-3 Bharat Bhushan
Verma, PW-4 Constable 151 Rajesh Yadav, PW-5 retired S.I. Devendra Dhar Dwivedi, PW-6 Dr.
Amod Kumar, PW-7 Dr. C.I. Raza, PW-8 Head Constable Krishna Avatar Singh, PW-9 Constable
Meraj Ahmad Khan and PW-10 retired S.I. Vijay Nath Tiwari. In documentary evidence, the
prosecution has filed written report (Ext. ka-1), injury reports of Krishnanand Tiwari (Ext. ka-2),
Rajesh Yadav (Ext. ka-3), Dev Vrat Tiwari (Ext ka-4), first information report (Ext. ka-7), chargesheet in case crime no. 46 of 1999 (Ext. ka-8) and charge-sheet in case crime no. 47 of 1999 (Ext.
ka-9).

17. After closure of the prosecution evidence, statement of accused appellants under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Accused Murtaza died during trial hence trial against him was
abated during trial itself.

18. Accused persons in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the allegations
levelled against them and stated that they are innocent and the whole prosecution story is false.
Accused Zakir and Jabir have said that they are poor labourer. They were hired by police without
any payment and when they refused, the police has concocted the present story against them.
Accused Shivnath Singh has said that he was not present on the spot on the day of alleged incident.

19. After hearing the learned counsel for the prosecution and defence, the trial court has
found that the prosecution has fully succeeded in bringing home the charges against the
accused/appellants beyond reasonable doubt and the accused / appellants were convicted and
sentenced, hence these appeals.
7 All. Jabir & Ors. Vs State Of U.P.
539
20. I have heard S/Shri Dilip Kumar and P.K. Singh, learned counsel for the appellants in
both the appeals and Shri Z.K. Hasan, learned AGA for the State, and have gone through the entire
record.

21. Castigating the impugned judgement and order, learned counsel for the appellants have
submitted that the appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case.
Prosecution case has not been supported by any independent evidence. Medical evidence is also
doubtful. Place of occurrence is in the vicinity of dense populated area but the prosecution case is
not supported by any person of the locality. It was further submitted that the prosecution could not
prove its case beyond reasonable doubt as the motive / reason to remain present of the prosecution
witnesses on the spot was not established. Crime No. 45 of 1999 is said to have been lodged against
the accused Murtza (deceased-non-appellant) but the evidence to this effect was not adduced before
the court concerned nor the weapon said to have been used in the crime was produced by the
prosecution. In absence of such evidence, the opinion formed by the court below is perverse and
illegal. It was next submitted that the appellant Shivnath Singh has been implicated in this matter as
the police bore enmity with him because Shivnath Singh was resisting/protesting the local police
for their wrong doings. It was further submitted that there is contradictory statement of the
witnesses on the point of arrest of Murtza (deceased-non-appellant) before starting of the present
incident. The recovery is also false. The findings recorded by the trial court regarding injuries said
to have been sustained by the police personnel are also against the fact and law. The impugned
order suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court.

22. On the other hand, Shri Z.K. Hasan, learned AGA appearing for the State has submitted
that co-accused Murtza (deceased-non-appellant) was wanted in Crime No. 45 of 1999. The local
police had gone to the place of occurrence in search of Murtza (deceased-non-appellant) and the
properties said to have been looted and when the police tried to apprehend Murtza, accused persons
objected the police personnel and caused injuries to them. At this juncture, learned A.G.A. refered
to the injury reports and submitted that the injuries found on the body of the injured could be
caused by the weapon assigned to the appellants. Appellant Shivnath Singh has also participated in
the matter and caused resistance to the public servants to deter the public duty. The findings
recorded by the trial court in the impugned judgment and order is in accordance with the evidence
available on record. It was next contended that the motive has been clearly established by the
prosecution. Non-furnishing the G.D. entry relating to Crime No. 45 of 1999 will not be sufficient
to discard the oral statement of the prosecution witnesses. It was further submitted that the
statement of prosecution witnesses can also not be discarded merely on this ground that they are
police personnel. The prosecution case is supported by medical evidence. Appellants were arrested
on the spot. P.W.-2 Devbrat Tiwari has sustained serious injuries. Hence, in the circumstances, the
impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality.

23. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and
have carefully gone through the entire record and evidence.
540 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

24. In the present matter, the trial court's findings are that the prosecution was able to
establish the motive, place of occurrence, time of incident and participation of the accused persons
beyond reasonable doubt. The first information report is not an anti-timed document. Laches said to
have been occurred on the part of the Investigating Officer are not sufficient to discard the evidence
of the injured witnesses. Thus, the charge framed against the appellants were found proved beyond
reasonable doubt.

25. Before analyzing the findings recorded by the trial court in the impugned judgment and
order with the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also the evidence
available on record, it will be useful to note the admitted facts between the parties, which are as
under:

(i) Place and time of occurrence is not disputed.

(ii) Prosecution could not furnish documents / papers relating to crime no. 45 of
1999, said to have been registered at police station concerned against co-accused Murtza (deceased
- non-appellant), in regard to which the prosecution witnesses claim their presence on the spot.

(iii) Prosecution case is that all the injured were medically examined on
16.3.1999 but the injury reports (Ext. ka-2 & 3) regarding Krishna Nand Tiwari and Rajesh Yadav
indicates that medical examination was done on 17.3.1999.

(iv) On the spot, police personnel were armed with the weapons issued to them
but said weapons were not used by them in the incident.

(v) Shivnath Singh is not family member of the other accused.

26. Now the court proceeds to deal with the submissions made by the learned counsel for
the parties.

27. First and foremost question in the present matter is as to whether the prosecution was
able to establish the motive / reason of the presence of the police personnel on the date and time at
the place of occurrence.

28. Although I am oblivious of the fact that motive relegates into the back ground in a case
of direct ocular testimony and is not of much significance, but where the motive is false and cooked
up, then it assumes importance to test the veracity or other wise of the prosecution witnesses.

29. As is evident from the FIR and the statement of prosecution witnesses, the present
incident took place when the local police had gone to the place of occurrence in connection with
case crime no. 45 of 1999 under Sections 457, 380 IPC in search of accused Murtza but no
documentary evidence to establish this fact as to whether crime no. 45 of 1999 was related to the
offence stated by the prosecution witnesses has been filed. The present matter is related to crime
7 All. Jabir & Ors. Vs State Of U.P.
541
nos. 46 of 1999 and 47 of 1999. Thus, the burden to prove the time and date of the registration of
crime no. 45 of 1999 was upon the prosecution. The trial court finding on this point is that motive /
reason regarding the presence of the police personnel on the date and time at the place of
occurrence was established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Since the prosecution
could not adduce any documentary evidence on this point, then in absence of such evidence, the
finding recorded by the trial court on the point of motive is not sustainable. In this matter, it cannot
be said that on the basis of statement of eye account witnesses motive has no significance. There is
specific plea of the prosecution regarding motive/ reason of presence of the police personnel on the
date and time at the place of occurrence and the entire prosecution story rests on the motive taken
by the prosecution. In the instant case, police personnel are said to have received injuries. One
constable Dev Vrat Tiwari has received serious injuries but the manner in which the injuries were
said to have been caused by the appellants to the police personnel are improbable and unbelievable.
Several police personnel, present on the spot, were armed with revolver and rifle but they have not
used the same in their defence rather they saved themselves by hiding. There is contradiction in the
statement of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 on the point as to whether the accused Murtaza was
apprehended before start of the present incident or not and also on the point of time of medical
examination of the prosecution witnesses said to have sustained injuries in the present matter. PW5 in the cross-examination has admitted that none of the accused was named in crime no. 45 of
1999. This fact also supports the submission raised by the learned counsel for the appellants.
Hence, it appears that the prosecution has suppressed the origin and genesis of the incident as only
one constable Dev Vrat Tiwari has received serious injuries in the matter. Injury reports said to
have been prepared in regard to other injured are also not believable as there is contradictory
statement of the prosecution witnesses regarding date and time of preparation of those reports.
Further, PW-5 has not disclosed the name of the persons who rescued them. The weapon said to
have been used in the crime was also not produced before the Court.

30. So far as the laches in investigation are concerned, the Apex Court in Kailash Gour
and others vs. State of Assam, (2011) 13 Scale 549 has held that:

".....................That an accused is presumed to be innocent till he is proved guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt is a principle that cannot be sacrificed on the alter of inefficiency,
inadequacy or inept handling of the investigation by the police. The benefit arising from any such
faulty investigation ought to go to the accused and not to the prosecution......."

31. Upon careful analysis and consideration of the settled legal position in the backdrop of
the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the opinion that the conclusion taken by the
trial court regarding motive and manner of committing the offence is not in accordance with law
and the evidence available on record and the prosecution appears to have suppressed the origin and
genesis of the occurrence due to which the documentary evidence regarding Crime No. 45/1999
was not produced. Thus, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has not been able to establish
the guilt of the accused appellants beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the Court is inclined to grant
benefit of doubt to the accused appellants on the ground of rule of caution.
542 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

32. In view of the above discussions, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has failed
to establish the guilt of the accused appellants Jakir and Kadir for the offences punishable under
Sections 148, 307, 333, 336/149, 504, 506 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and accused
appellants Jabir and Shivnath Singh for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 307/149,
333/149, 336, 504, 506 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act beyond reasonable doubt and to
the satisfaction of the judicial conscience of the court. So, the impugned judgement and order of
conviction and sentence dated 12.3.2013, which has been sought to be assailed, call for and
deserves, interference. The criminal appeals are liable to be allowed.

33. Accordingly, criminal appeal nos. 1401 of 2013 and 1255 of 2013 are allowed and the
conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused appellants Jakir and Kadir for the offences
punishable under Sections 148, 307, 333, 336/149, 504, 506 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment
Act and accused appellants Jabir and Shivnath Singh for the offences punishable under Sections
147, 307/149, 333/149, 336, 504, 506 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act are set-aside as the
accused appellants Jakir, Kadir, Jabir and Shivnath Singh are found not guilty for the aforesaid
offences. They are acquitted of all the charges framed against them. Accused appellant(s) on bail
need not surrender. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. The accused
appellants, who are in jail, be released forthwith in case they are not wanted in any other case /
crime.

34. Copy of this judgement be also kept on the record of Criminal Appeal No.1255 of
2013.

35. Copy of this judgement alongwith lower court record be sent forthwith to the Sessions
Judge, Ballia for compliance. Compliance report be sent to this Court.
----------
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.07.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. VIJAY LAKSHMI, J.

Criminal Revision No.- 1500 Of 2016

Aaram Singh & Ors. ...Revisionists
Versus
State Of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for Revisionists:
Sri Vidit Narayan Mishra

Counsel for Opposite Parties:
Government Advocate