# Jagannath v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2026) 1 ILRA 346
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-01-28
- **Case number:** Jail Appeal No. 311 of 2018
- **Bench:** Chandra Dhari Singh, Devendra Singh-I
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jagannath-v-state-of-u-p-54003
- **Pages:** 9

## Text

346 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Rajesh Kumar
Date: 15-10-2024 14:44:39

14. In light of the aforesaid notification, it is very much clear that a criminal revision before
Divisional Commissioner alone will lie against the confiscation order passed by the District
Magistrate in U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955. Hence, the criminal revision against the
impugned order passed by the District Magistrate, after the said Notification in the court of
Sessions Judge, is not maintainable as the applicant has equal and efficacious remedy to ventilate
his grievances before Divisional Commissioner concerned. However, this Court is of the view that
the above Notification which was issued on 15.10.2024 would not have come to the notice of the
applicant and she filed a criminal revision in view of law laid down by the Division Bench of this
Court in the case of Mustakeem Begum (supra). But once the order was passed on 26.04.2024 in
the case of Mustakeem Begum (supra), the Government has issued Notification on 15.10.2024
and remedy has been provided. Therefore, criminal revision in the Court of District Judge would
not lie against the confiscation order passed by the District Magistrate. The proper remedy is to file
revision before Divisional Commissioner concerned

15. Therefore I find it appropriate to dispose of this application with a liberty to the applicant
to approach the proper forum by filing a revision before Divisional Commissioner concerned
within a month from the date of order and if applicant approaches the forum as directed by this
Court, the concerned Divisional Commissioner will entertain her revision without going into the
question of limitation.

16. If the revision is filed by the applicant before the Divisional Commissioner concerned
challenging the order dated 19.10.2024 passed by District Magistrate, Chandauli, within a period
prescribed here, the execution of order dated 19.10.2024 passed by the District Magistrate,
Chandauli, shall not be given effect to, till final judgment of Revisional Court.

17. With the aforesaid observations, the present application is disposed of.
---------
(2026) 1 ILRA 346
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD-28.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.
THE HON'BLE DEVENDRA SINGH-I, J.

Jail Appeal No. 311 of 2018

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

Issue for consideration
1 All. Jagannath Vs. State of U.P.
347
The matter pertains to a dispute arose over a trivial issue. The appellant was filling water from a hand pump
in the house of the first informant's sister, which caused the area to become muddy. When the sister
objected, an argument ensued. when a man intervened, the appellant stabbed him to death.

Headnotes
Indian Penal Code,1860-Section 302,323-Criminal Procedure Code,1973-Section 378-Sudden
fight-Exception 4 to section 300 IPC-Trivial dispute-Incident occurring over a hand pump
becoming muddy-Absence of Premeditation-Act done in the heat of passion-Accused wielding a
weapon handy at the time-No previous enmity established-Nature of Injury-Single blow on the
Chest-Cruelty and Undue advantage-Accused not inflicting further injuries after the victim fellConduct indicative of lack of cruelty-Death caused by Shock and haemorrhage resulting from an
incised wound-Thirteen year custody period- Appellant entitled to the benefit of Exception 4 to
section 300 IPC- Hence, Sentence is modified from life imprisonment to eight years rigorous
imprisonment.(Para 31 to 36) (E-6)

Held
The court held that the Present case fulfilled the four requirements of Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC i.e.
sudden fight, absence of premeditation, heat of passion, did not act in a cruel and unusual manner. The
appellant was entitled to the benefit of Exception 4.

Case law Cited
Jagtar Singh Vs State of Punjab (1983) 2 SCC 342, K. Ramakoteswara Rao Vs State of A.P., 1986 C.r.L.J 680,
Surinder Kumar Vs Union Territory Chandigarh (1989) 2 SCC 217, V. Sreedharan Vs State of Kerala , AIR 1992
SC 754, Bhera Vs State of Rajasthan, 2000 SCC (Cri) 1230, Mochi Raju Vs State of Gujarat JT 2001 (10) SC
398, Sukbhir Singh Vs State of Haryana (2002 3 SCC 327, Sukbhir Singh Vs State of Haryana (2002 3 SCC
327, Shanmugam Vs State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2003 SC 200, Ghapoo Yadav Vs State of M.P. (2003) 3 SCC,
Pulicheria Nagaraju @ Nagaraju Reddy Vs State of A.P (2006) 11 SCC 444, Sudhakar Vs State of U.P. (2012 8
SC 289-referred to.
List of Acts
Indian Penal Code,1860, Criminal Procedure Code,1973.

List of Keywords
Murder, culpable homicide, Exception 4, section 300 IPC, Voluntarily Causing hurt, sudden fight, absence of
premeditation, heat of passion, cruel and unusual manner, Single Blow, Knowledge Intention, Post-mortem
report, Site plan, recovery, Expert opinion, Jail Appeal, Conversion of Sentence, Modification, Undue
advantage, Eye witness testimony.

Case Arising from
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION- JAIL APPEAL No. - 313 of 2018

Jagannath Vs. State of U.P.
From the Judgment and order dated 28.01.2026 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

Appearances for Parties
Adv. for Appellant(s):-
 Devendra Pratap Singh, From Jail
Adv.for Respondent(s):-
A.G.A.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh, J.)
348 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

1. This Criminal appeal has been filed against the judgement and order dated 25.02.2017
passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Mathura in ST No. 24 of 2013, under
Section 302, 307 IPC, police station Goverdhan, district Mathura whereby the learned Judge
convicted and sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section
302 IPC and in default of payment of fine, the appellant was further directed to undergo additional
simple imprisonment of two years. He was further convicted and sentenced to one year simple
imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 323 IPC and in default of payment of fine, he
was to undergo one month's additional imprisonment.

2. However, both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

Brief Facts

3. In short compass, the facts of the case are that a written report was given by Krishna Das,
son of Madhusudan, resident of Barsana, district Barsana, district Mathura (hereinafter referred to
as the "first informant") to the Station House Officer, police station Goverdhan that there is a hand
pump in the house of his sister Meera. Jagannath, disciple of Anant Das, was filling water from that
hand pump, due to which it has become muddy. On the objection of her sister as to why he has got
the hand pump muddy, he started abusing her. When Ashok Pal, who was working in the house of
Arvind Haldhar, tried to intervene in the matter, accused with an intention to kill, inflicted knife
blow on Ashok Pal on his chest. He also assaulted the first informant with an intention to kill, on
his hand. After the assault, accused fled away along with his disciple. Ashok Pal was taken to the
hospital, where doctor declared him dead. This incident occurred at 10.00 hours on 09.08.2012.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid report, a Chik FIR was registered at Case Crime No. 469 of
2012, under Section 302 and 307 IPC, police station, Goverdhan, which was entered in the GD vide
report No. 29 at 11:00 AM.

5. After the registration of the FIR, SI D.L. Pal, who was present at the police station, rushed
to the spot and conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and prepared papers relating to
postmortem examination. He also handed over the cadaver of the deceased to Constable Pushpal
Singh and Constable Asharam for getting postmortem examination done.

6. PW-4, Dr. Sanjeev Gupta, conducted autopsy on the cadaver of the deceased and found the
following injuries:

1. Incised wound of size 2 cm x 1 cm cavity deep just below the left nipple, oblique ward
lower end in 5 cm from the mid line of chest, upper end in 6 cm from the mid line of chest.

2. An incised wound of size 3 cm x 1 cm skin deep 2 cm anterior to left side of chest.

In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage as a result of antemortem injuries.
1 All. Jagannath Vs. State of U.P.
349

7. Injured Krishna Das was taken to Primary Health Centre by Constable 2192, Tehsildar
Singh, where he was examined by PW-7, Dr. Rajendra Singhal, Medical Superintendent, who
found the following injuries on the person of injured Krishna Das:

"Incised wound 1 cm x 2 cm x 3 cm deep on left side of hand."

In the opinion of the doctor, the injury was simple in nature and was caused by some sharp
edged weapon.

8. Investigation of the case was taken up by PW-6, Raghvendra Singh, who was posted as
Station House Officer, Goverdan. He inspected the spot and prepared site plan. After the arrest of
the accused he recovered knife which was used in the commission of the crime on the pointing out
of the accused. He also collected bloodstained clothes of the accused, plain and bloodstained earth
and prepared memos thereof. After culmination of investigation, the investigating officer submitted
charge sheet against the appellant.

9. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate
committed the case to the Court of Sessions, where case was registered as ST No. 24 of 2013.
Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Mathura framed the charges against the accusedappellant, which was read over and explained to him.

10. To bring home guilt of the appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as seven
witnesses, out of which PW-1, Krishna, PW-2, Meera Dasi, PW-3, Pradeep Das are the witnesses
of fact, whereas PW-4, Dr. Sanjeev Gupta, who conducted post-mortem examination on the
cadaver of the deceased, PW-5, Satish Chandra, who prepared Chik FIR, PW-6, Raghvendra Singh,
the investigating officer of the case and PW-7, Dr. Rajendra Singhal, who examined the injured, are
the formal witnesses.

11. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused was recorded
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

12. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Mathura after hearing the learned
counsel for the parties and assessing, evaluating and scrutinizing the evidence on record, convicted
and sentenced the accused-appellant as indicated herein above.

13. Hence, this appeal.

Submission on behalf of the appellant

14. Learned counsel for appellant-accused at the very outset submits that he restricts his
argument only to the extent for conversion of the sentence from Section 302 to Section 304 IPC
and submits that keeping in view the injuries received by the deceased-Ashok Pal and the injured
Krishna Das, caused by the appellant, the case shall not traverse beyond the purview of Section 304
Part-II IPC.
350 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Submissions on behalf of the State

15. On the other hand, Shri Niraj Kumar Tiwari, learned Additional Government Advocate
representing the State submitted that the accused caused injury by knife on the chest of the
deceased, which resulted in his death and there was no grave or sudden provocation, the learned
Trial Court on appreciation of the entire evidence on record, has rightly convicted and sentenced
the appellant. for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.

Analysis and conclusion

16. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and leaned Additional Government Advocate and
gone through the entire evidence of the case.

17. There is no absolute proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in any of
the decisions that in a case of a single blow Section 302 IPC shall not be attracted. Hon'ble
Supreme Court in a catena of judgements has held that number of injuries is not the determining
factor for ascertaining the intention.

18. For better appreciation of the contention of learned counsel for the appellants, we would
like to refer certain pronouncement of Hon'ble Supreme Court on the point in question insofar as
the appellant is concerned.

19. In Jagtar Singh Vs. State of Punjab (1983) 2 SCC 342, accused on the spur of moment
inflicted a knife blow on the chest of the deceased. The injury proved fatal. The doctor opined that
the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The Apex Court observed
that quarrel was of a trivial nature and even in such a trivial quarrel appellant wielded a weapon
like a knife and landed a blow on the chest. In these circumstances, it is permissible to infer that the
accused at least could be imputed with the knowledge that he was likely to cause an injury which
was likely to cause death. The Court altered the conviction of the appellant from Section 302 IPC
to Section 304 Part II IPC and sentenced the accused to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years.

20. In K. Ramakoteswara Rao Vs. State of A.P., 1986 Cr.L.J. 680, a sudden quarrel arose
between the accused and the deceased and the deceased threatened the accused with dire
consequences. The accused stabbed the deceased with knife. The Court convicted the accused
under Section 304 Part-I IPC.

21. In Surinder Kumar Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh, (1989)2 SCC 217, Hon'ble Apex
Court held that if on a sudden quarrel a person in the heat of the moment picks up a weapon which
is handy and causes injuries out of which only one proves fatal, he would be entitled to the benefit
of the Exception provided he has not acted cruelly. Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the number of
wounds caused during the occurrence in such a situation was not the decisive factor. What was
important was that the occurrence had taken place on account of a sudden and unpremeditated fight
and the offender must have acted in a fit of anger. Dealing with the provision of Exception 4 to
Section 300, Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:
1 All. Jagannath Vs. State of U.P.
351

"..... To invoke this exception four requirements must be satisfied, namely, (i) it was a
sudden fight; (ii) there was no premeditation; (iii) the act was done in a heat of passion; and (iv)
the assailant had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner. The cause of the
quarrel is not relevant nor is it relevant who offered the provocation or started the assault. The
number of wounds caused during the occurrence is not a decisive factor but what is important is
that the occurrence must have been sudden and unpremeditated and the offender must have acted
in a fit of anger. Of course, the offender must not have taken any undue advantage or acted in a
cruel manner. Where, on a sudden quarrel, a person in the heat of the moment picks up a weapon
which is handy and causes injuries, one of which proves fatal, he would be entitled to the benefit of
this exception provided he has not acted cruelly."

22. In V. Sreedharan Vs. State of Kerala, AIR 1992 SC 754, the accused, as a result of
provocation caused in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel, chased the deceased to some
distance and then gave the single fatal blow, it was held that the whole incident was a continuous
sequence. Hence the conviction of the accused was shifted from Section 302 to Section 304 Part-I
IPC.

23. In Bhera Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2000 SCC (Cri) 1230, accused and the deceased
quarrelled and while quarrelling the accused in anger suddenly took out the knife and gave knife
blow on the chest of the deceased which resulted in his death. The Apex Court set aside the
conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC, instead convicted him under Section 304 Part II
IPC and sentenced him to 5 years imprisonment.

24. In Mochi Raju Vs. State of Gujarat, JT 2001 (10) SC 398, accused appellant and the
deceased started fighting and during the quarrel appellant took out the knife from the pocket and
gave one blow to the deceased on his chest. The Apex Court while convicting the appellant for an
offence under Section 304 Part II, sentenced him to five years rigorous imprisonment.

25. In Sukbhir Singh v. State of Haryana (2002) 3 SCC 327, the appellant caused two Bhala
blows on the vital part of the body of the deceased that was sufficient in the ordinary course of
nature to cause death. The High Court held that the appellant had acted in a cruel and unusual
manner. Reversing the view taken by the High Court, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that all fatal
injuries resulting in death cannot be termed as cruel or unusual for the purposes of Exception 4 of
Section 300 IPC. In cases where after the injured had fallen down, the appellant did not inflict any
further injury when he was in a helpless position, it may indicate that he had not acted in a cruel or
unusual manner. The Court observed:

26. In Sukhbir Singh Vs. State of Haryaba, (2002) 3 SCC 327, the appellant caused two
Bhala blows on the vital part of the body of the deceased that was sufficient in the ordinary course
of nature to cause death. The High Court held that the appellant had acted in a cruel and unusual
manner. Reversing the view taken by the High Court this Court held that all fatal injuries resulting
in death cannot be termed as cruel or unusual for the purposes of Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC.
In cases where after the injured had fallen down, the appellant did not inflict any further injury
when he was in a helpless position, it may indicate that he had not acted in a cruel or unusual
manner. The Court observed:
352 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"...All fatal injuries resulting in death cannot be termed as cruel or unusual for the
purposes of not availing the benefit of Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC. After the injuries were
inflicted and the injured had fallen down, the appellant is not shown to have inflicted any other
injury upon his person when he was in a helpless position. It is proved that in the heat of passion
upon a sudden quarrel followed by a fight, the accused who was armed with Bhala caused injuries
at random and thus did not act in a cruel or unusual manner.

27. In Shanmugam Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2003 SC 200, the accused stabbed the
deceased over a petty quarrel with a spear in the abdomen and chest. The victim died after a week
of septicaemia. The accused was punished under Part-I of Section 304 IPC.

28. In Ghapoo Yadav Vs. State of M.P. (2003) 3 SCC 528, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that
in a heat of passion there must be no time for the passions to cool down and that the parties had in
that case before the Court worked themselves into a fury on account of the verbal altercation in the
beginning. Apart from the incident being the result of a sudden quarrel without premeditation, the
law requires that the offender should not have taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual
manner to be able to claim the benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. Whether or not the fight
was sudden, was declared by the Court to be decided in the facts and circumstances of each case."

29. In Pulicherla Nagaraju @ Nagaraja Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2006) 11 SCC
444, the Hon'ble Court held thus:

"Therefore, the court should proceed to decide the pivotal question of intention, with care
and caution, as that will decide whether the case falls under Section 302 or 304 Part I or 304 Part
II. Many petty or insignificant matters - plucking of a fruit, straying of a cattle, quarrel of children,
utterance of a rude word or even an objectionable glance, may lead to altercations and group
clashes culminating in deaths. Usual motives like revenge, greed, jealousy or suspicion may be
totally absent in such cases. There may be no intention. There may be no pre-meditation. In fact,
there may not even be criminality."

30. In Sudhakar Vs. State of U.P., (2012)8 SC 289, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:

"Going by the narration of the facts disclosed, there was nothing to suggest that there
was any premeditation in the mind of the appellant to cause the death of the deceased. Taking into
account the statement of P.W.1 that the deceased was under the influence of liquor and that
whenever he was under the influence of liquor he used to throw the household articles and create a
ruckus in the house was a factor which created a heat of passion in the appellant who as a father
was not in a position to tolerate the behaviour of his son whose misbehaviour under the influence
of liquor was the torment. Therefore, unmindful of the consequences, though not in a cruel manner
the appellant inflicted a single blow which unfortunately caused severe damage to the vital organs
resulting into the death of the deceased. In such circumstances, as rightly contended by learned
counsel for the appellant, we are convinced that the offence alleged and as found proved against
the appellant can be brought under the First Part of Section 304 of IPC. Accordingly, while
affirming the conviction of the appellant, we are only altering the same as falling under Section
304 Part I of IPC in place of Section 302 of IPC. As far as the sentence imposed on the appellant in
1 All. Jagannath Vs. State of U.P.
353
as much as we reached at the conclusion that the conviction should fall under Section 304 Part I of
IPC, taking note of the sentence already undergone, we find from the Imprisonment Certificate that
the appellant is in jail from 12.07.2004 and he is 60 year old, P.W.1, who is the wife of the
appellant, is left all alone and the appellant having suffered imprisonment for more than eight
years, we hold that the sentence already undergone would be sufficient punishment apart from the
fine imposed with the default sentence as per the judgment of the Trial Court and as affirmed by the
High Court. The appeal stands partly allowed with the above modifications of the charge and the
sentence imposed on the appellant."

31. In the light of the above pronouncements of Hon'ble Apex Court, we shall now proceed to
consider whether case against the accused-appellants falls within the ambit of Section 302 IPC or
Section 304 IPC.

32. PW-1, who is the first informant of the case, in his deposition, has stated that along with
the accused, his disciple was also with him, whom he recognizes, but does not know his name. He
further stated that his sister did not try to save him. There was no hand pump in the locality. This
witness has further stated that he received injuries while saving the deceased. From the perusal of
the statement of PW-1, Krishna, who is the first informant and injured in this case, it appears that
accused-appellant had tried to inflict him knife blow, which missed and hit the deceased on his
chest resulting in his death. The blow was not aimed at vital part of the body. Further, from the
perusal of the first information report as well as the deposition of the witnesses, it is clear that the
incident has occurred over a very trivial issue of filling of water from the hand pump and getting
the hand pump muddy. There was no premeditation and act was done in a heat of passion. Further
none of the witnesses, in their deposition have stated that accused-appellant after the injured had
fallen down, had inflicted any further injury when the victim was in a helpless position, which is
indicative of the fact that accused had not acted in a cruel or unusual manner. PW-1, Krishna, who
is the first informant of the case has also mentioned in the FIR, that Ashok was working in the
house of Haldhar, who himself came to the spot and became a party to the dispute. PW-2, Smt
Meera Dasi, in her deposition has even went on to state that accused has come to the village a week
ago and living in a rented house. Moreover, in the statements of witnesses, there is no whisper of
any previous enmity of the deceased with the appellant.

33. The cumulative effect of all these circumstances, in our opinion, should entitle the
appellants to the benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.

34. In view of the aforesaid legal proposition enunciated by Hon'ble Supreme Court and
looking at the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased and the injured person and the
circumstances as enumerated above, the conclusion is irresistible that the death was caused by the
acts of the accused-appellant done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as would likely
to cause death and, therefore, the offence would squarely come within the ambit of Section 304
part-I IPC, instead of Section 302 IPC.

35. In view of the above conspectus, the conviction of the appellant Jagannath under Section
302 IPC cannot be sustained. This Court is reluctant in endorsing the life imprisonment.
Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC is set aside, instead, he is
354 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
convicted under Section 304 Part-I IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of eight years.
Conviction of the appellant under Section 323 IPC is affirmed. Appellant is stated to be in jail since
10.08.2012. He shall be released forthwith unless wanted in any other case provided he has
completed the modified sentence of eight year.

36. Resultantly, the appeal is partly allowed with the aforesaid modification in the impugned
judgement and order dated 25.02.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 03,
Mathura.

37. Office is directed to transmit the lower court record along with a copy of this order to the
court concerned for compliance.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 354
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
ALLAHABAD-DATED: 29.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.
THE HON'BLE DEVENDRA SINGH-I, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 450 of 1987

Madho & Anr. ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Issue for consideration
The case originated from an incident on 09.07.1982 involving a dispute over the placement of bricks and
stones that hindered construction work.

Headnotes
Indian Penal Code,1860-Sections 302/34-Criminal Procedure Code,1973-Section 374(2)-
Murder-Common intention-Exhortation-Dispute over shifting of bricks and stones-Allegation that
appellant exhorted principal accused to shoot deceased-Principal accused fired from roof and
later chased victim to deliver fatal shot-Abatement of appeal regarding co-accused due to deathDiscrepancy between PW-1(Informant) and PW-3(Witness)-Possibility of false implicationWitness named in FIR filed an affidavit denying presence at the scene of occurrence-Prosecution
failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt-Conviction and life sentence set aside-Appeal
allowed.(Para 28 to 39) (E-6)

Held
The court held that there is quite often a tendency to implicate some person in addition to the actual
assailant, by attributing to that person an exhortation to the assailant to assault the victim. Unless the
evidence in this respect be clear, cogent and reliable, no conviction for abetment can be recorded against the
person alleged to have exhorted the actual assailant. The evidence adduced at the trial in respect of the part
alleged to have been played by the appellant is contradictory and far from convincing.

Case law Cited