# Kripa Ram & Ors v. State Of U.P

- **Citation:** (2016) 5 ILRA 526
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-05-12
- **Bench:** Aditya Nath Mittal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kripa-ram-ors-v-state-of-u-p-43867
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Conviction Under Sections 147, 148, 325/149 & 307/149 IPC Set Aside - Sole Eyewitness
Presence Doubtful- Appeal against conviction by II Additional Sessions Judge, Bahraich (Sessions Trial No.
185 of 1994) arising out of Case Crime No. 91 of 1993 (P.S. Gilaula, District Bahraich) for incident dated
3.7.1993 in which armed appellants allegedly fired upon and beat father of complainant; appellant No. 1 Kripa
Ram died during pendency of appeal and his appeal abated; PW-3 Tularam and PW-4 Kanhaiyalal Tripathi
turned hostile and did not support prosecution version; sole remaining witness PW-5 Lal Sahab Pandey
(complainant) admitted sitting inside his house at time of incident and coming out upon alarm - reaching the
spot only after accused had already fled eastwards; his Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement disclosed that his
version of incident was based on his father's narration; he stated in cross-examination that he himself scribed
the FIR but Ext. Ka-4 specifically mentioned Devi Prasad Mishra of Gilaula as scribe - material contradiction
going to the root of the matter; incident was at 5.45 AM in rainy season with insufficient daylight making
visibility doubtful at 50 steps; complainant not attacked or injured despite being allegedly present when 8
armed accused with previous enmity were on spot; all circumstances established his absence from spot and
cumulatively proved appellants were implicated on suspicion due to previous enmity - findings of trial court
held perverse. (Paras 1-9)

Genuineness Admitted Under Section 294 Cr.P.C. - X-Ray Report Readable in Evidence --
Contention that non-examination of doctor who prepared X-ray report makes it inadmissible, repelled; Held,
Dr. A.K. Sant (PW-1) examined the injured on the date of incident and proved injuries; genuineness of X-ray
report admitted under Section 294 Cr.P.C. - Section 294(3) Cr.P.C. specifically provides that document whose
genuineness is not disputed may be read in evidence; authorities cited by appellant from Patna High Court
held to have overlooked Section 294(3); Maharashtra High Court authority itself held that once genuineness
admitted, document may be read in evidence; contention repelled. (Paras 3-4)

Appeal Allowed - Appellants Acquitted

Case Law Discussed:

## Text

526 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
involve no such hardship to plaintiff, and that the specific performance would be inequitable for the
defendant, then such findings are apparently such which cannot be treated as incorrect or erroneous. Findings
of first appellate court are in accordance with sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of section 20 of Specific
Relief Act. These findings are not such that should be interfered without any sufficient reason.

11. But this point remains pertinent that plaintiff-appellant had given amount of Rs. 50,000/- in year
2005, and from then not only valuation of the property has been enhanced but also the value of the currency
has also reduced. In this regard, Apex Court had held in Pratap Lakshman Muchandi v. Shamlal
Uddavadas Wadhwa, (2008) 12 SCC 67 as under:-

"16. But at the same time it is also true that the agreement to sell was executed way back in
the year 1982. Since after 1982 much water has flown under the bridge, the value of the real estate has shot
up very high, therefore, while exercising our jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 we
would like to be equitable and would not allow the sale of property to be executed for a sum of Rs 1,20,000.
The litigation has prolonged for almost 25 years and now at last reached at the end of the journey.
Therefore, we have to settle the equity between the parties. We hold that the agreement to sell was genuine
and it was executed for bona fide necessity but because of the passage of time we direct that the respondents
shall pay a sum of Rs 5 lakhs in addition to Rs 1,10,000 as out of Rs 1,20,000, Rs 10,000 has already been
paid as advance. On receipt of Rs 1,10,000 and Rs 5 lakhs (Rs 6,10,000) the appellants shall execute the
sale-deed for the property in question."

12. Considering the status of the parties, the enhancement of value of real estate and decline in value
of currency, it appears appropriate that the relief of refund of money, as directed by first appellate court,
should be enhanced. After hearing parties, it appears appropriate that said amount be enhanced from Rs.
40,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/-.

13. In view of the above, this appeal is partly allowed. The judgment of first appellate court is
amended, and the defendant-respondent is directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- with interest, as directed by first
appellate court. Remaining directions of first appellate in impugned judgment are confirmed.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 12.05.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ADITYA NATH MITTAL, J.

Criminal Appeal No.- 614 Of 1997

Kripa Ram & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State Of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
5 All. Kripa Ram & Ors. Vs State Of U.P.

527
Sri Salil Kumar Srivastava (for Appellants 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 & 8), Sri Narendra Gupta (for Appellant No. 5)

Counsel for the Respondent:
A.G.A.
.................................

Conviction Under Sections 147, 148, 325/149 & 307/149 IPC Set Aside - Sole Eyewitness
Presence Doubtful- Appeal against conviction by II Additional Sessions Judge, Bahraich (Sessions Trial No.
185 of 1994) arising out of Case Crime No. 91 of 1993 (P.S. Gilaula, District Bahraich) for incident dated
3.7.1993 in which armed appellants allegedly fired upon and beat father of complainant; appellant No. 1 Kripa
Ram died during pendency of appeal and his appeal abated; PW-3 Tularam and PW-4 Kanhaiyalal Tripathi
turned hostile and did not support prosecution version; sole remaining witness PW-5 Lal Sahab Pandey
(complainant) admitted sitting inside his house at time of incident and coming out upon alarm - reaching the
spot only after accused had already fled eastwards; his Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement disclosed that his
version of incident was based on his father's narration; he stated in cross-examination that he himself scribed
the FIR but Ext. Ka-4 specifically mentioned Devi Prasad Mishra of Gilaula as scribe - material contradiction
going to the root of the matter; incident was at 5.45 AM in rainy season with insufficient daylight making
visibility doubtful at 50 steps; complainant not attacked or injured despite being allegedly present when 8
armed accused with previous enmity were on spot; all circumstances established his absence from spot and
cumulatively proved appellants were implicated on suspicion due to previous enmity - findings of trial court
held perverse. (Paras 1-9)

Genuineness Admitted Under Section 294 Cr.P.C. - X-Ray Report Readable in Evidence --
Contention that non-examination of doctor who prepared X-ray report makes it inadmissible, repelled; Held,
Dr. A.K. Sant (PW-1) examined the injured on the date of incident and proved injuries; genuineness of X-ray
report admitted under Section 294 Cr.P.C. - Section 294(3) Cr.P.C. specifically provides that document whose
genuineness is not disputed may be read in evidence; authorities cited by appellant from Patna High Court
held to have overlooked Section 294(3); Maharashtra High Court authority itself held that once genuineness
admitted, document may be read in evidence; contention repelled. (Paras 3-4)

Appeal Allowed - Appellants Acquitted

Case Law Discussed:
1. Ram Deo v. State of Bihar, 1988 Crl.L.J. 1431
2. Ganpat Raoji v. State of Maharashtra, 1980 Crl.L.J. 853
3. Nagina Sharma & Others v. The State of Bihar, 1991 (2) Crime 453
4. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, 1984 SCC 116

(Delivered by Hon'ble Aditya Nath Mittal, J.)

1. During the pendency of this appeal, appellant No.1, Kripa Ram has passed away.
Therefore, the appeal filed by appellant No.1, Kripa Ram has been abated against him and the
appeal survives against rest appellants.

2. Heard Shri Salil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for appellants 2,3,4,6,7 and 8, Shri
Narendra Gupta, learned counsel for appellant no. 5, learned AGA and perused the record.
528 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
3. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 30.09.1997
passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Bahraich in Sessions Trial No. 185 of 1994 relating to case
crime no. 91 of 1993 under sections 147,148,149,307,504,506 and 323 Indian Penal Code (For
short IPC), police station-Gilaula, District-Bahraich (now District Shrawasti), whereby the
appellants have been convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under section 147 with
rigorous imprisonment of six months, under section 148 IPC with rigorous imprisonment of one
year, under section 325/149 IPC with rigorous imprisonment of two years and a fine of Rs. 2000/-
and under section 307/149 with rigorous imprisonment of seven years and a fine of Rs. 3000/-.

4. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that complainant Lal Sahab Pandey lodged
the report on 3.7.1993 at 7.15 a.m. at police station Gilaula alleging therein that on 3.7.1993 at
about 5.30 a.m., his father had gone to field for natural call. At about 5.45 a.m., due to the dispute
of partition of the property, the accused persons armed with lathi abused his father and intercepted
him. When his father tried to run away towards his house, then upon the exhortation of Daddan,
accused Kripa Ram had caused fire arm injury upon his father with the intention to kill him. Upon
further exhortation of Baburam, all the accused persons started beating his father by lathi. Upon his
alarm, he and Nanke alias Kandhai Lal, Tularam and other villagers came to the spot for rescue. By
seeing them, the accused persons ran away towards east.

5. Upon this information, the case at case crime no. 91 of 1993 under sections
147,148,149,307,504,506 and 323 IPC was registered against the appellants at police stationGilaula, District-Bahraich. After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the appellants.

6. The prosecution has examined Dr. A.K. Sant as P.W. 1, Constable Imtiyaz Ahmad as
P.W. 2, Tularam as P.W. 3, Kanhaiyalal Tripathi as P.W.4, Lal Sahab Pandey (complainant) as
P.W. 5 and S.I. Santram as P.W. 6.

7. After recording the evidence of the prosecution, the statements of the accused appellants
were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C., in which they have denied the evidence.

8. After appreciating the evidence on record, learned court below has convicted the
appellants for the offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 325/149 IPC and 307/149 IPC and
accordingly sentenced them.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that witnesses Tularam (P.W.3) and
Kanhaiyalal Tripathi (P.W.4) have not supported the prosecution version and the injured has also
died. Therefore, he has not been examined. There remains the solitary statement of complainant Lal
Sahab Pandey (P.W.5). It has also been submitted that although the genuineness of the medical
report has been admitted, but it was incumbent upon the prosecution to have examined the doctor
who conducted X-ray of the injured. Therefore, the injury report cannot be read in evidence. It has
also been submitted that the fire arm injuries were caused by accused Kripa Ram, who has already
died. The injuries were on non vital part of the body, therefore, offence punishable under section
307 IPC is not made out. All these injuries are simple and are on non vital part of the body, the
5 All. Kripa Ram & Ors. Vs State Of U.P.

529
offence under section 307 IPC is not proved. It has further been submitted that there are various
material contradictions in the statement of the sole eye witness and his presence on the spot of
occurrence is not proved. Therefore, his statement cannot be believed. It has also been submitted
that there are defects in the statements under section 313 Cr.P.C, therefore, the appellants are
entitled to get benefit of it.

10. On the other hand, learned AGA has defended the impugned judgment and order
passed by the learned trial court and has submitted that although the injured has died after seven
days of the incident due to natural death, but the FIR's version is corroborated by the statement of
complainant Lal Sahab Pandey (P.W.5), who is the son of the injured. It has also been submitted
that there is no glaring mistake in the findings of learned trial court.

11. Learned counsel for the appellants has placed much emphasis on the point that because
the medical examination report was not proved, therefore, it cannot be read in evidence. In this
regard, learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon Ram Deo Vs. State of Bihar, 1988
Crl.L.J. 1431, Ganpat Raoji Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1980 Crl.L.J 853, Nagina Sharma and
others Vs. The State of Bihar, 1991 (2) Crime 453. The gist of the said law is that because the
injury report is not a substantive piece of evidence, therefore, the genuineness if admitted under
section 294 Cr.P.C., will not prove the injuries and the doctor should have been examined who had
seen the injuries.

12. In this case, Dr. A.K. Sant had been examined as P.W.1, who had examined the injured
on the date of incident and he has proved the injuries on the body of the injured. It is not disputed
that doctor, who had conducted the X-ray and prepared the X-ray report, has not been examined
and the accused persons had admitted the genuineness of the document. As far as the laws relied
upon by the learned counsel for the appellants is concerned, they are not applicable to the present
set of facts because in the present case, Dr. A.K. Sant has been examined as P.W. 1, who has
proved the injuries on the body of the injured. As far as the non production of another doctor, who
prepared the X-ray report of the injured is concerned, the genuineness of that report has been
admitted under section 294 Cr.P.C. If the said interpretation of learned counsel for the appellants is
accepted, then there remains no relevance of section 294 Cr.P.C. Sub-clause (3) of section 294
Cr.P.C. specifically provides that where genuineness of any document is not disputed, such
document may be read in evidence in trial. Out of the three case laws relied upon by learned
counsel for the appellants, two judgments are of Hon'ble Patna High Court. With due regards, in
this respect, it appears that the Patna High Court has overlooked the provisions of section 294 (3)
Cr.P.C. As far as the third law of Maharashtra High Court is concerned, Hon'ble Maharashtra High
Court has specifically held in that law that once the genuineness is admitted, then the document
itself may be read in evidence. Therefore, mere non examination of doctor, who prepared the X-ray
report is not fatal to the prosecution in view of the fact that the injuries of the injured have already
been proved by Dr. A.K. Sant (P.W1) and the opportunity of cross examination has also been
extended.
530 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
13. Learned counsel for the appellants has further relied upon Sharad Birdhichand Sarda
Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1984 SCC 116, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as
under:-

"144. To the same effect is another decision of this Court in Harijan Megha Jesha
Vs. State of Gujarat where the following observations were made; (SCC (cri) P. 653, para 3)

In the first place, he stated that on the personal search of the appellant a chedi was
found which was blood stained and according to the report of the serologist, it contained human
blood. Unfortunately, however, as this circumstance was not put to the accused in his statement
under section 342, the prosecution cannot be permitted to rely on this statement in order to convict
the appellant."

"145. It is not necessary for us to multiply authorities on this point as this question
now stands concluded by several decisions of this Court. In this view of the matter, the
circumstances which were not put to the appellant in his examination under Section 313 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 have to be completely excluded from consideration."

14. In the present case, I have perused the statements of the appellants recorded under
section 313 Cr.P.C. and I find that the circumstances have been put to the appellants in their
examination under section 313 Cr.P.C and the statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. is detailed
statement, in which the evidence has been put to the appellants and the specific questions have been
asked. In my opinion, the appellants do not get any benefit from the aforesaid law of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court because I find that the circumstances have been put to the appellants in their
examination under section 313 Cr.P.C.

15. The prosecution has examined three witnesses of fact namely Tularam (P.W.3) and
Kanhaiyalal Tripathi (P.W.4) and complainant Lal Sahab Pandey (P.W.5). Tularam (P.W.3) and
Kanhaiyalal Tripathi (P.W.4) have turned hostile and they have not supported the prosecution
version. Moreover, in their cross examination by the prosecuting agency, nothing such material has
come into light that they had seen the incident or they have reached the place of occurrence at the
time of incident. In these circumstances, there remains the solitary statement of Lal Sahab Pandey
(P.W.5), who is the complainant also. I am conscious of the fact that when there is single testimony
of fact regarding the incident, it must be scrutinised very cautiously so as to come to the conclusion
that whether the presence of such witness was natural on the spot and he had seen the incident with
his own eyes. The statement of sole witness should also not contain any material contradictions.
The testimony of the sole witness, who is a injured person, is entirely different from the testimony
of the witness, who is not injured. Admittedly, Lal Sahab Pandey (P.W.5), who is the complainant
also, has not received any injuries and he has also not stated in his statement that he has also been
attacked by the appellants.

16. From the perusal of the statement of complainant Lal Sahab Pandey (P.W.5), it appears
that there was enmity in between the father of the complainant and the appellants. It has come in
5 All. Kripa Ram & Ors. Vs State Of U.P.

531
his evidence that there was dispute regarding property and the injured father of the complainant had
made the criminal complaint against these appellants, in which they were sent to jail. It has also
come in the evidence that in that criminal complaint, the appellants after getting their release from
jail, had committed this incident on second or third day. The complainant by his statement has tried
to prove the motive of the incident, but mere motive is not sufficient to convict any accused unless
there is reliable evidence regarding involvement of the appellants.

17. In the statement of Lal Sahab Pandey (P.W.5), it has come that he has seen the incident
from the distance of 50 steps. This witness has also admitted that at the time of incident he was
sitting in his house and upon alarm, he came out and reached Ghati, then he heard the voice of
country made pistol, upon which he had raised the alarm and the witnesses had come there. As has
been stated earlier that witnesses Tularam (P.W.3) and Kanhaiyalal Tripathi (P.W.4) have not
supported the prosecution version, I find substance in the submission of learned counsel for the
appellants that when the complainant has admitted in his statement that at the time of incident, he
was sitting inside his house, then it was not possible for him to have witnessed the incident. In this
regard, the statement of Lal Sahab Pandey (P.W.5) recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. is also
important.

18. In the statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C., this witness has stated as under:-

"शोरगुल पर मैं तथा गााँव के िन्के उफग कन्हैई लाल पुत्र सुकई व तुलाराम वगैरा वगैरा पहाँर् गये थे तो सभी
मुखिमाि मारिा बन्द करके पूरब की तरफ को भाग गये थे। मेरे डपता जी िे बताया डक सभी मुखिमाि मुझे घेर डलये थे तो दद्दि िे
कहा डक मारो साले को, इस पर कृपाराम िे "

19. From the aforesaid statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C., it appears that the
statement of complainant is based upon the information of his father. From his statement, it also
appears that the time when the complainant and the alleged witnesses reached the place of
occurrence, the accused persons had ran away towards east. It also appears that the complainant
had reached the place of occurrence much later and till then the accused persons had fled away
from there. As there was previous enmity in between the parties, therefore, the possibility cannot be
ruled out that due to previous enmity, the appellants might have been named due to the suspicion.

20. There is one more material contradiction in the statement of Lal Sahab Pandey (P.W.5).
He has stated in his cross examination that the FIR was scribed by himself and he does not know
any Devi Prasad Mishra. Further, he has authenticated this version by saying that he had not got
scribed the FIR by any third person, but he had himself written the Tahrir. This fact is contrary to
the Tahrir Ext. Ka-4 because in the Ext. Ka-4, it has been specifically mentioned in the same hand
writing that the scriber of this Tahrir is Devi Prasad Mishra of Gilaula. This contradiction goes to
show that either the complainant had not witnessed the incident himself and he has simply signed
the report scribed by Devi Prasad Mishra otherwise there was no reason to wrongly deny this fact
that the Tahrir was not scribed by Devi Prasad Mishra. This material contradiction goes to the route
of the matter and creates so many doubts about the truthfulness of the contents of this report Ext.
Ka-4.
532 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
21. The complainant has admitted in his statement that when he had lifted his father from
the spot, his clothes were stained with blood and mud and in the same blood stained and muddy
clothes, he had first gone to police station. The general diary has been scribed at the time of lodging
the FIR, which has also been proved as Ext. Ka-3, but it does not contain any such fact that the
clothes of the complainant were also stained with blood and mud.

22. I also find substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the
incident is of the month of July and it was a rainy season. It has also come in the evidence that after
about four hours, the rain started. When the rain starts, the clouds come on the sky. The incident is
of 5.45 a.m. in the morning and in these circumstances, it cannot be denied that no sufficient source
of day light was available at that time, therefore, it was not probable to see the incident from the
distance of 50 steps, as stated by the complainant.

23. There is one more circumstance that if the complainant was present on the spot, he
might have tried to get rescue his father and might have also received some injuries, but in the
present case there is no such attempt stated by the complainant and admittedly the complainant has
also not received any injuries. If the incident has been committed by eight accused persons armed
with lathi and country made pistol, and if the incident had taken place due to previous enmity, then
in these circumstances, the appellants could have also attacked the complainant if he was actually
present on the spot. He has nowhere stated that he intervened in this incident and tried to save his
father. It goes to prove that he was not present there and he scribed FIR upon information of his
father, or otherwise. All these circumstances go to show that at the time of incident, the
complainant was not present on the spot. The statement of complainant as well as the version of the
FIR that Tularam (P.W.3) and Kanhaiyalal Tripathi (P.W.4) had also reached the spot, do not find
support from the statements of Tularam (P.W.3) and Kanhaiyalal Tripathi (P.W.4).

24. In view of the above discussion, the presence of Lal Sahab Pandey (P.W.5) is
suspicious by various adverse circumstances and the presence of this witness on the place of
incident is also doubtful. It appears that the appellants have been implicated mere on the basis of
suspicion due to previous enmity. In these circumstances, the statement of Lal Sahab Pandey
(P.W.5) does not inspire confidence. Apart from Lal Sahab Pandey (P.W.5), there is no other eye
witness of the incident. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the prosecution has utterly
failed to prove the guilt of the appellants and the appellants are entitled for the benefit of doubt
also.

25. I find that the findings of the learned trial court are perverse and appreciation of
evidence by the learned trial court is misconceived. The appeal is liable to be allowed and the
appellants are liable to be acquitted of the charges levelled against them.

26. The appeal is allowed. The judgement and order dated 30.09.1997 passed by II
Additional Sessions Judge, Bahraich in Sessions Trial No. 185 of 1994 is set aside. Appellants are
acquitted of the charges levelled against them.
5 All. Suresh Kumar Singala Vs State Of U.P.

533
27. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the concerned trial court
along-with lower court record at an early date.

----------
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.05.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Criminal Revision No.- 724 Of 2001

Suresh Kumar Singala ...Revisionist
Versus
State Of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Gopal Swaroop Chaturvedi, Rakesh Chandra Upadhyay

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A.

.................................

Charge Under Section 120B IPC in Bank Dacoity Case - Res-Judicata, Double Jeopardy and
Issue-Estoppel - Revision Dismissed - Revisionist (Branch Manager, Allahabad Bank, Branch Khariya,
Sonbhadra) charged under Section 120B IPC by Sessions Judge, Sonbhadra (Sessions Trial No. 56 of 2000)
for alleged conspiracy in dacoity of Rs. 82,85,000/- from his bank on 04.02.2000; seven circumstances
including revisionist's exclusive knowledge of Rs. 70 lacs transit cash, departure without locking strong room,
non-retention of security guards and constables, dacoits entering 15 minutes after his departure, and
statement of Lallan Prasad Pandey (overheard conversation on 11.01.2000 between revisionist and coaccused Rajesh Kumar Mishra planning bank dacoity) relied upon to frame charge; revision filed on ground
that revisionist was already acquitted by CJM, Sonbhadra in a separate Criminal Case No. 578 of 2000 (dacoity
at Vindhyavasini Gramin Bank, Anpara) in which the same witness Lallan Prasad Pandey retracted his
statement and Rajesh Kumar Mishra was also acquitted. (Paras 2-9)

Res-Judicata and Double Jeopardy Inapplicable - Two Separate Incidents, Different Charges -
Held, two incidents are entirely separate - one at Vindhyavasini Gramin Bank on 11.01.2000 (Rs. 2 lacs loot
from cashier in transit) and another at Allahabad Bank on 04.02.2000 (Rs. 82,85,000/- dacoity inside strong
room); revisionist was Branch Manager only at Allahabad Bank and had no concern with Vindhyavasini Bank;
dates of incidents, place of occurrence, charge and attending circumstances are entirely different; principle of
Section 403(1) Cr.P.C. (autrefois acquit) inapplicable; however, principle of issue-estoppel partially attracted
- statement of Lallan Prasad Pandey having been retracted in earlier proceedings, it cannot be relied to
disturb that finding of fact in present trial; but this does not eliminate remaining six circumstances relied upon
by Sessions Judge for framing charge. (Paras 13-16, 24, 34-36)

Estoppel -when estoppel is argued, double jeopardy principle stands excluded; when remaining material is
sufficient to frame charge, revision must fail; revision held to be misconceived filed to delay trial - matter