# Kalimulla v. Smt. Mehroz Jafri & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 11 ILRA 717
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-11-02
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 3040 of 2023
- **Bench:** Mrs. Renu Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kalimulla-v-smt-mehroz-jafri-anr-49397
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

718 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
G.A.

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 340, 344, 341
& 195 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 191, 192 & 193 - Criminal Appeal -
False
Evidence
-
Forged
Documents
-
Maintenance Proceedings - Administration of
Justice
The appellant challenged the order dated
24.08.2023 passed by the Additional Principal
Judge, Family Court, Lucknow, rejecting his
application under Sections 340/344 Cr.P.C. in
Criminal Misc. Case No. 126-C of 2015, alleging
that opposite party no. 1 concealed her income
tax payee status and employment to secure an
ex-parte maintenance order under Section 125
Cr.P.C. The opposite party argued that no
forged
documents
were
produced,
the
allegations were repetitive, and the appeal was
part of vexatious litigation, as the appellant had
filed 37 cases against her and her family. Held:
(1) The appeal was dismissed with a cost of Rs.
50,000. (2) No prima facie case was made out
under Section 340 Cr.P.C., as there was no
evidence of forged or fabricated documents
produced during the trial to procure conviction,
as required by Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C., per
Iqbal Singh Marwah Vs Meenakshi Marwah. (3)
The appellant's failure to produce income tax
documents during the trial and the quasi-civil
nature of Section 125 proceedings negated his
claims. (4) Section 344 Cr.P.C. orders are not
appealable under Section 341 Cr.P.C. (5) The
appellant's actions were deemed vexatious,
aimed at harassing opposite party no. 1, who
had remarried after their marriage dissolved,
and intended to disrupt her life, warranting
dismissal to curb such litigation.

Case Law Cited:

## Text

11 All. Kalimulla Vs. Smt. Mehroz Jafri & Anr.
717
N.D.P.S. Act, in view of law laid down by
Apex Court in Vijaysinh Chandubha
Jadeja (Supra).

20. Further, it is also pertinent to note
at this juncture that not only the manner in
which the appellant was searched, is
doubtful, the prosecution has also not
prosecuted the case seriously, knowing that
severe punishment has been provided in
N.D.P.S. Act. It produced only four
witnesses i.e Udairaj Singh, Inspector as
P.W.-1, S.I. Ram Gopal Yadav as P.W.-2,
Dayashanker Mishra, I.O. as P.W.-3 and
Constable Radheshyam as P.W.-4 and
withheld
other
witness
without
any
justification.

21. In the light of above discussion, it
is clear that the prosecution has failed to
prove the mandatory compliance of Section
50 N.D.P.S. Act. In absence of compliance
of mandatory provision of Section 50
N.D.P.S Act, the prosecution case, based
on testimony of police personnel i.e.
Udairaj Singh, Inspector as P.W.-1, S.I.
Ram Gopal Yadav as P.W.-2, Dayashanker
Mishra, I.O. as P.W.-3 and Constable
Radheshyam as P.W.-4, whose statements
are not wholly reliable, cannot be held as
proved beyond reasonable doubt in view of
the
other
illegalities
and
material
irregularity committed by the witnesses as
discussed above.

22. Thus this Court is of the view that
prosecution has miserably failed to prove
its case beyond reasonable doubt against
the appellant. The trial Court has not
properly discussed the evidence produced
by the prosecution and has passed the
impugned judgment and order against the
settled
principle
of
law
including
provisions of N.D.P.S. Act. This Court,
therefore, unable to uphold the conviction
and sentence of the appellant. The appellant
is entitled to be acquitted. The impugned
judgment and order is liable to be set aside
and accordingly, appeal is liable to be
allowed.

23. In view of the above, impugned
judgment and order dated 16.09.2002
passed by learned Special / Additional
Sessions Judge (E.C. Act), Bahraich in
Sessions Trial No.62 of 1998, Case Crime
No.309 of 1998, under Sections 8/20 of
N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station Pakharpur,
District Bahraich, is set aside and reversed
and accused/appellant, namely, Ali Hasan
is acquitted of the charges levelled against
him. Consequently, the appeal is allowed.
His personal bond and surety bonds are
canceled and sureties are discharged.

24. Let a copy of this judgment
alongwith the lower court record be sent
immediately to the Trial Court concerned
for necessary compliance.

25. No order as to the costs.
----------
(2023) 11 ILRA 717
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 02.11.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. RENU AGARWAL, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 3040 of 2023

Kalimulla ...Appellant
Versus
Smt. Mehroz Jafri & Anr. ..Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Appellant:
Pal Singh Yadav, Ashish Kumar Singh,
Prathama Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
718 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
G.A.

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 340, 344, 341
& 195 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 191, 192 & 193 - Criminal Appeal -
False
Evidence
-
Forged
Documents
-
Maintenance Proceedings - Administration of
Justice
The appellant challenged the order dated
24.08.2023 passed by the Additional Principal
Judge, Family Court, Lucknow, rejecting his
application under Sections 340/344 Cr.P.C. in
Criminal Misc. Case No. 126-C of 2015, alleging
that opposite party no. 1 concealed her income
tax payee status and employment to secure an
ex-parte maintenance order under Section 125
Cr.P.C. The opposite party argued that no
forged
documents
were
produced,
the
allegations were repetitive, and the appeal was
part of vexatious litigation, as the appellant had
filed 37 cases against her and her family. Held:
(1) The appeal was dismissed with a cost of Rs.
50,000. (2) No prima facie case was made out
under Section 340 Cr.P.C., as there was no
evidence of forged or fabricated documents
produced during the trial to procure conviction,
as required by Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C., per
Iqbal Singh Marwah Vs Meenakshi Marwah. (3)
The appellant's failure to produce income tax
documents during the trial and the quasi-civil
nature of Section 125 proceedings negated his
claims. (4) Section 344 Cr.P.C. orders are not
appealable under Section 341 Cr.P.C. (5) The
appellant's actions were deemed vexatious,
aimed at harassing opposite party no. 1, who
had remarried after their marriage dissolved,
and intended to disrupt her life, warranting
dismissal to curb such litigation.

Case Law Cited:

1. Iqbal Singh Marwah & anr. Vs Meenakshi
Marwah & anr., (2005) 4 SCC 370; 2005 SCC
(Crl.) 1101; 2005 SCC OnLine SC 531

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Renu Agarwal,
J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
appellant, learned counsel for opposite
party no.1, learned AGA for the State and
perused the material brought on record.

2. Present criminal appeal under
section 341 Cr.P.C. has been preferred on
behalf of the appellant against the judgment
and order dated 24.08.2023 passed by
Additional Principal Judge Family Court,
Court No.5, Lucknow, in Criminal Misc.
Case No.126-C of 2015, under section
340/344
Cr.P.C.(Kalimulla
Vs.
Smt.
Mehroz Jafri), by which learned court
below without considering the fact and
material evidence filed by the appellant,
rejected the application of appellant under
section 340/344 Cr.P.C. in illegal and
arbitrary manner.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant
submits that trial court failed to appreciate
the fact that respondent no.1 is doing job in
multinational
company
and
getting
handsome salary and able to maintain
herself and concealed the fact on the stage
of evidence that she is income tax payee.
The court below also failed to consider the
prima-facie evidence adduced by the
appellant and passed the impugned order,
which is illegal & irregular and is liable to
be set-aside.

4. Sri Krishna Kumar Singh,
Advocate, has filed his power on behalf of
the opposite party no.1 alonwith the
application
for
dismissal
of
appeal
supported by an affidavit. It is submitted
that deponent is the father of opposite party
no.1 and is authorized by opposite party
no.1 through registered power of attorney
dated 03.07.2018 to do pairvi on her behalf.
The aforesaid application is moved by the
appellant in the case being Criminal Case
No.30-C of 2011, under section 125
Cr.P.C. instituted by opposite party no.1 in
Family Court, Lucknow, which was finally
11 All. Kalimulla Vs. Smt. Mehroz Jafri & Anr.
719
decided
by
the
Family
Court
on
02.09.2023. The appellant challenged the
aforesaid order dated 02.09.2023 before
this Hon'ble High Court in Criminal
Revision No.1004 of 2023 (Kalim Ulla Vs.
Additional Principal Judge, Family Court,
Lucknow).
The
Hon'ble
High
Court
dismissed the revision vide order dated
19.09.2023, which is annexed as annexure
no.1 to the application.

5. The allegation made by the
appellant in his application under section
340/344 Cr.P.C. has been considered by
this Hon'ble High Court vide order dated
19.09.2023, which has attain finality. The
learned Principal Judge, Family Court has
also considered the same contention in the
order dated 24.08.2023. The order passed
under section 344 Cr.P.C. is not appealable
and appeal can be filed only against the
order passed under section 340 Cr.P.C.,
therefore, the present appeal against the
order dated 24.08.2023 is not maintainable.
It is further submitted that Hon'ble Apex
Court in various cases held that section
195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. could be attracted
only when the offences enumerated in the
said provision have been committed with
respect to a document after it had been
produced or given in evidence in a
proceeding in any court. Appellant wants to
rely upon those documents (Income Tax
Record), which were not produced before
the court concerned during trial. The
allegation made by the appellant in
application under section 340/344 Cr.P.C.
have been considered several times from
2015 to till date. Case No.924 of 2008 was
decided on 22.01.2011 considering the
reply of the appellant. Further on the basis
of same allegation appellant filed a
criminal case being Complaint Case
No.5692 of 2015 in the court of Judicial
Magistrate-I,
Bhopal
in
which
same
allegation was made by him and documents
were sought to be produced by means of
application under section 91 Cr.P.C. which
was rejected by the court concerned. In the
court of Family Court, Lucknow appellant
has made the aforesaid allegation through
his application under section 340/344
CR.P.C. in Misc. Case No.131-C of 2012,
under section 127 Cr.P.C., which was also
rejected by the court concerned by order
dated 24.08.2023. It is further submitted
that Criminal Case No.30-C of 2011, under
section 125(3) Cr.P.C. has been finally
decided by the Family Court, Lucknow
vide order dated 02.09.2023, much before
filing of the present appeal, but despite of
that the appellant did not mention a word
about the final order dated 02.09.2023.
Appellant challenged the order dated
02.09.2023 by way of Criminal Revision
No.1004
of
2023
(Kalimmulla
Vs.
Additional Principal Judge, Family Court,
Lucknow), which has been dismissed by
this Hon'ble High Court by order dated
19.09.2023 on merit. Appellant having
complete knowledge of the pendency of
SLP(Civil) No.4635 of 2023 and despite
the full knowledge deliberately did not
disclose this fact before this Hon'ble High
Court. In order to harass and torture the
opposite party no.1 and her parents the
appellant has filed 37 cases including the
present appeal till dated against the
opposite party no.1. It is therefore prayed
by learned counsel for opposite party no.1
that present appeal is liable to be dismissed.

6. I have heard the rival submissions
of learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.

7. It is revealed from the perusal of
impugned judgment that the application
under section Kha-3 alongwith affidavit C4 was filed under section 340/344 Cr.P.C.
720 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
on the ground that complainant was
married with appellant on 05.01.2008 in
Scientific Convention Centre, Lucknow
free of dowry on the basis of advertisement
published in Times of India in English
Edition.
Rs.5,62,000/-were
given
to
opposite
party
before
marriage
and
Rs.11,00786/- were settled as an amount of
Mehar alongwith jewellery and house hold
goods etc. Opposite party returned to his
maternal home and filed a Suit No.924 of
2008, under section 125 Cr.P.C. on the
basis of false allegation. Opposite party
obtained an ex-parte order of maintenance
on the basis of false evidence. By way of
application moved under 340/344 Cr.P.C.
appellant prayed before the trial court for
inquiry on the ground that opposite party
was income tax payee at that time and
without disclosing her status and giving the
false evidence in the court she obtained the
above mentioned order of maintenance,
therefore, she committed the offence under
sections 191, 192 and 193 IPC and she is
liable to be prosecuted.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the
opposite party no.1 submitted that marriage
of couple has been dissolved 8 years ago.
The
opposite
party
no.1(wife)
has
solemnized her marriage elsewhere after
desolation of marriage and the appellant
wants to destroy the matrimonial life of
opposite party no.1 by filing false and
fabricated cases against her, as it is evident
from the list filed alongwith the applicant
that 37 cases have been filed against the
opposite party no.1 and her family
members by the appellant. Appellant paid
as maintenance only Rs.50,000/- against
Rs.5,60,000/-
due
to
her,
and
still
Rs.3,45,500/- are due as a maintenance
amount against the appellant. Out of 37
cases, 18 cases have been decided, 13 cases
have been dismissed, 9 cases are still
pending in various the courts at Lucknow
and one case is pending at Bhopal.

9. Learned trial court inquired on the
application moved by the appellant under
section 340/344 Cr.P.C. and found that no
offence made out during the trial before the
court concerned, therefore, the provisions
of section 195 Cr.P.C. are not attracted. It
is also found that from the inquiry there is
no evidence to the fact that any document
is prepared by forgery and produced before
the court to obtain the order in her favour.
Hence, the learned trial court found that
from inquiry it found that no prima-facie
case on the basis of evidence moved by
appellant with application under section
340/344 is made out.

10. It is undisputed fact that marriage
was solemnized between the parties in the
year 2008 and appellant claims that during
the pendency of case under section 125
Cr.P.C the fact was concealed that opposite
party was income tax payee and was able to
maintain herself.

11. Section 340 Cr.P.C. is quoted
herein below:-

"(1) When upon an application
made to it in this behalf or otherwise, any
Court is of opinion that it is expedient in
the interests of justice that an inquiry
should be made into any offence referred to
in clause (b) of sub- section (1) of
section 195, which appears to have
been committed in or in relation to a
proceeding in that Court or, as the
case may be, in respect of a document
produced or given in evidence in a
proceeding in that Court, such Court
may, after such preliminary inquiry, if
any, as it thinks necessary,-

(a) record a finding to that effect;
11 All. Kalimulla Vs. Smt. Mehroz Jafri & Anr.
721

(b) make a complaint thereof in
writing;

(c) send it to a Magistrate of the
first class having jurisdiction;

(d) take sufficient security for the
appearance of the accused before such
Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is non-
bailable and the Court thinks it necessary
so to do, send the accused in custody to
such Magistrate; and

(e) bind over any person to
appear and give evidence before such
Magistrate.

(2) The power conferred on a
Court by sub- section (1) in respect of an
offence may, in any case where that Court
has neither made a complaint under sub-
section (1) in respect of that offence nor
rejected an application for the making of such
complaint, be exercised by the Court to which
such former Court is subordinate within the
meaning of sub- section (4) of section 195.

(3) A complaint made under this
section shall be signed,-

(a) where the Court making the
complaint is a High Court, by such officer of
the Court as the Court may appoint;

(b) in any other case, by the
presiding officer of the Court.

(4) In this section," Court" has the
same meaning as in section 195."

12. Section 344 Cr.P.C. is quoted
herein below:-

"(1) If at the time of delivery of
any judgment or final order disposing of
any judicial proceeding, a Court of Session
or Magistrate of the first class expresses an
opinion to the effect that any witness
appearing
in
such
proceeding
had
knowingly or wilfully given false evidence
or had fabricated false evidence with the
intention that such evidence should be used
in such proceeding, it or he may, if satisfied
that it is necessary and expedient in the
interest of justice that the witness should be
tried summarily for giving or fabricating,
as the case may be, false evidence, take
cognizance of the offence and may, after
giving
the
offender
a
reasonable
opportunity of showing cause why he
should not be punished for such offence, try
such offender summarily and sentence him
to imprisonment for a term which may
extend to three months, or to fine which
may extend to five hundred rupees, or with
both.

(2) In every such case the Court
shall follow, as nearly as may be
practicable, the procedure prescribed for
summary trials.

(3) Nothing in this section shall
affect the power of the Court to make a
complaint under section 340 for the
offence, where it does not choose to
proceed under this section.

(4) Where, after any action is
initiated under sub- section (1), it is made
to appear to the Court of Session or
Magistrate of the first class that an appeal
or an application for revision has been
preferred or filed against the judgment or
order in which the opinion referred to in
that sub- section has been expressed, it or
he shall stay further proceedings of the
trial until the disposal of the appeal or the
application for revision, as the case may
be, and thereupon the further proceedings
722 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of the trial shall abide by the results of the
appeal or application for revision."

13. Section 195 IPC is quoted herein
below:-

"195. Giving or fabricating false
evidence with intent to procure conviction
of offence punishable with imprisonment
for life or imprisonment.?Whoever gives or
fabricates false evidence intending thereby
to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he
will thereby cause, any person to be
convicted of an offence which 1[by the law
for the time being in force in 2[India]] is
not
capital,
but
punishable
with
3[imprisonment for life], or imprisonment
for a term of seven years or upwards, shall
be punished as a person convicted of that
offence would be liable to be punished.
Illustration A gives false evidence before a
Court of Justice, intending thereby to cause
Z to be convicted of a dacoity. The
punishment of dacoity is 3[imprisonment
for life], or rigorous imprisonment for a
term which may extend to ten years, with or
without fine. A, therefore, is liable to
3[imprisonment for life] or imprisonment,
with or without fine."

14. From the language of section 195
IPC it is clear that "whoever gives or
fabricates false evidence" the phrase means
that "who actively produced any fabricated
and false evidence in court"

15. In the case in hand there is no
contention
that
opposite
party
has
fabricated any false evidence or prepared
any forged documents and produced the
same in the court. The mere contention of
learned counsel for the appellant is that
opposite party withheld income tax paper
from producing in the court during the
disposal of application for maintenance
under section 125 Cr.P.C..

16. The proceedings under section
125 Cr.P.C. are quasi-civil in nature and
the appellant has also the opportunity to
produce those papers during his evidence,
but he did not dare to file those documents
during his evidence in the court. The case
was decided ex-party by the court. Hence at
this stage appellant cannot be allowed to
take plea that opposite party no.1 withhold
the income tax papers. There is no
contention that any document is fabricated
and used during trial.

17. Second ingredient for attracting
the provisions of section 340/344 Cr.P.C. is
that "intending thereby to cause, or
knowing it to be likely that he will thereby
cause, any person to be convicted of an
offence which by the law for the time being
in force in India is not capital, but
punishable with imprisonment for life or
imprisonment for a term of seven years or
upwards."

18. It is clearly evident that
withholding of document of income tax
return
during
the
proceeding
of
maintenance application the complainant
cannot procure conviction or punishment of
appellant for 7 years or beyond.

19. Hence the second ingredient
for attracting the provisions of section
340/344 Cr.P.C. is also not fulfilled.
Thus in the impugned case it is not
contended that any forged or fabricated
document is prepared and produced
before the trial court to procure the
conviction and sentence against the
appellant, hence the provisions of
section 340 is not attracted.
11 All. Kalimulla Vs. Smt. Mehroz Jafri & Anr.
723

20. So far as section 344 Cr.P.C. is
concerned, the order passed under section
344 Cr.P.C. is not appealable, hence the
appeal against the order passed under
section 344 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable.

21. In Iqbal Singh Marwah and
Another Vs. Meenakshi Marwah and
Another, (2005) 4 SCC 370; 2005
SCC(Crl.) 1101 and 2005 SCC OnLine SC
531, Hon'ble Apex Court held that "The
fact that the procedure for filing a
complaint by Court has been provided in
Chapter XXVI dealing with offences
affecting administration of justice, is a
clear pointer of the legislative intent that
the offence committed should be of such
type
which
directly
affects
the
administration of justice, viz., which is
committed after the document is produced
or given in evidence in Court. Any offence
committed with respect to a document at a
time prior to its production or giving in
evidence in Court cannot, strictly speaking,
be said to be an offence affecting the
administration of justice."

22. It is also held by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Iqbal Singh Marwah
and Another Vs. Meenakshi Marwah and
Another(Supra), that "In view of the
language used in Section 340 Cr.P.C. the
Court is not bound to make a complaint
regarding
commission of
an
offence
referred to in Section 195(1)(b), as the
Section is conditioned by the words "Court
is of opinion that it is expedient in the
interest of justice." This shows that such a
course will be adopted only if the interest
of justice requires and not in every case.
Before filing of the complaint, the Court
may hold a preliminary enquiry and record
a finding to the effect that it is expedient in
the interests of justice that enquiry should
be made into any of the offences referred to
in Section 195(i)(b). This expediency will
normally be judged by the Court by
weighing not the magnitude of injury
suffered by the person affected by such
forgery or forged document, but having
regard to the effect or impact, such
commission
of
offence
has
upon
administration of justice. It is possible that
such forged document or forgery may
cause a very serious or substantial injury to
a person in the sense that it may deprive
him of a very valuable property or status or
the like, but such document may be just a
piece of evidence produced or given in
evidence in Court, where voluminous
evidence may have been adduced and the
effect of such piece of evidence on the
broad concept of administration of justice
may be minimal. In such circumstances, the
Court may not consider it expedient in the
interest of justice to make a complaint. The
broad view of clause (b)(ii), as canvassed
by learned counsel for the appellants,
would render the victim of such forgery or
forged
document
remedyless.
Any
interpretation which leads to a situation
where a victim of a crime is rendered
remedyless, has to be discarded."

23. From the above mentioned case
law it is clear that proceeding under section
340 Cr.P.C. can be initiated only if the
forged document is produced in the court
during the trial to procure the conviction
and punishment of the opposite party, is the
offence of such a nature, as to affect the
administration of justice. The legislative
intent is that the offence committed should
be of such type which directly affect the
administration of justice. If any offence
committed with respect to any document at
the time prior to its production or after the
delivery of judgment by the court, cannot
strictly speaking said an act to be an
offence affecting the administration of
724 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
justice. The opening phrase of section 340
Cr.P.C. reads by words "Court is of the
opinion that it is expedient in the interest of
justice". This goes to show that even if the
prima-facie case is made out, even than the
court is not bound to take any action
against the errying party. It is to be mention
by the court that it is in the interest of
justice to initiate the proceedings against
the erring party under section 340 Cr.P.C.
and the expediency will normally be judged
by the court and not by the person effected
by such forgery.

24. Thus, from the above mentioned
discussions it is clear that no false or
fabricated evidence was produced or
prepared or used by the opposite party no.1
to procure the conviction and sentence nor
it is pleaded that it will affect the
administration of justice or it is expedient
in the interest of justice to initiate the
proceedings against the opposite party no.1.
Per contra, it is clear from the record that
appellant has filed 37 cases against the
opposite party no.1 and her family
members, who is already living in marriage
relationship with another person after the
dissolution
of
marriage
with
the
present appellant and it is the attempt
by the appellant to throw the stone in
the peaceful life of opposite party
no.1, such attempt should nabbed and
curbed. So that vexatious litigation for
harassment of counter part in the
matrimonial
relationship
may
be
discouraged. Hence the appeal has no
force and is liable to be dismissed.

25. Accordingly, the present
appeal is dismissed with the cost of
Rs.50,000/-, which shall be deposited,
within 15 days from today by the
appellant in the legal cell of this
Court.
----------
(2023) 11 ILRA 724
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.05.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHWINI KUMAR
MISHRA, J.
THE HON'BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 7302 of 2022
connected with other cases

Nabi Ahmad ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Raghuvansh Mishra

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A., Sri Indra Deo Mishra, Sri Shri
Ram
(Rawat),
Sri
Shushil
Kumar
Mishra

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,
1860
-
Sections
147,
148,
452,
307/149,
302/149
&
506
-
Suspension
of
Sentence
-
From
perusal of record, it transpires two
persons murdered in broad daylight,
entire incident captured in CCTV -
Although footage was not proved in
absence of requirement of Section
65-B of Evidence Act, it was produced
before trial court - No specific role
assigned to co-accused/appellants in
FIR or in St.ment of PW-1 and PW-2,
they have kirpan and no injury found on
deceased and injured, which could be
inflicted from Kirpan - Being women, they
are entitled to benefit of Section 437
Cr.P.C - Considering their ages, their
sentence is suspended during pendency of
appeal - Other co-accused are released on
bail, as their names not appear in FIR,
their involvement emerges only from
complainant's supplementary St.ment - No
specific role is attributed to them in