# Laeeque @ Dharmanga (In Jail) v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2020) 2 ILRA 787
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-02-19
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 3653 of 2004
- **Bench:** B. Amit Sthalekar, Ali Zamin
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/laeeque-dharmanga-in-jail-v-state-of-u-p-45731
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law-Indian Penal CodeSections 302, 504 . and Section 4/25 of
the Arms Act r/w 34 I.P.C.- Appeal against
conviction.

The point of number of persons sitting on the
slab at the time of the incident, evidence of
P.W.2 and P.W.4, the alleged eye witnesses is
contradictory. On points of sitting place of
witnesses, place of incident and seat of injury
to the deceased, statement of P.W.1, P.W.2
and P.W.4 are contradictory to each other. All
contradictions indicate that this witness is also
not an eye witness of the incident that is why
the above contradictory statements have been
made. (Para 17)

The spot map has been prepared by the I.O.
on the pointing out of the P.W.1, , the
informant. Therefore, from the evidence led by
the prosecution the place of incident is not
proved. (para 18)

The knife used in the incident has also not
been produced before the trial court. Forensic
report is not available on record, so that it can
be said that the knife was used in the incident
and it is linked with the incident. (Para 22)

In view of the above discussion, prosecution
has failed to prove its case against the
accused-appellant for commission of offence.
(Para 23)

Criminal Appeal allowed. (E-2)

List of cases cited:-

## Text

2 All. Ashok @ Gore Lal Vs. State of U.P.
787
either description for a term which may
extend to two years or with fine or with
both: Provided that the court may, for
adequate and special reasons to be
mentioned in the judgment, impose a
sentence of imprisonment for a term of less
than seven years." Regarding section 376
I.P.C. the maximum sentence provided for
offence of rape is 7 years. Apex Court in
Gopal Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand
(2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 608 has propounded:-

"Just
punishment
is
the
collective cry of the society. While the
collective cry has to be kept uppermost in
the mind, simultaneously the principle of
proportionality between the crime and
punishment cannot be totally brushed
aside. The principle of just punishment is
the bedrock of sentencing in respect of a
criminal offence. A punishment should
not be disproportionately excessive. The
concept of proportionality allows a
significant discretion to the Judge but the
same has to be guided by certain
principles. In certain cases, the nature of
culpability,
the
antecedents
of
the
accused,
the
factum
of
age,
the
potentiality of the convict to become a
criminal in future, capability of his
reformation and to lead an acceptable life
in the prevalent milieu, the effect -
propensity to become a social threat or
nuisance, and sometimes lapse of time in
the commission of the crime and his
conduct in the interregnum bearing in
mind the nature of the offence, etc. etc."

21. Though in a case of rape, when
an adult commits rape on a girl of tender
age, deterrent punishment is called for,
taking a lenient view is out of question.
Once a person is convicted for the offence
of rape, he should be treated with heavy
hands and undeserved indulgence or
liberal attitude in not awarding adequate
sentence is improper.

22. On present scenario, the
appellant is in jail since 5.1.2013 and
during trial he remained in jail. Presently
he is incarceration for more than 7 years.
That appellant is very poor and not
represented by counsel of his choice
during trial so the contention of learned
counsel to adopt a lenient view and award
the custodial sentence to the appellant is
fully acceptable.

23. Considering the peculiar facts
and circumstances of the case, the
appellant is acquitted against the charge
under section 328 I.P.C. levelled against
him. Conviction of the appellant is
confirmed under sections 363, 376, 506
& 366 I.P.C. So on the point of
conviction, appeal is dismissed. On
quantum of sentence this court thinks that
end of justice would be met if the
appellant is sentenced to imprisonment
under section 376 I.P.C. which he has
already undergone. It is hereby clear that
fine clause shall be unaltered. After
depositing fine of Rs. 20,000/-, the victim
shall entitle of Rs. 15,000/- under section
357 (2) Cr.P.C. On the point of sentence
appeal is partly allowed.

24. On above terms, appeal is finally
disposed off.

25. Let a copy of the judgment
alongwith
lower
court
record
be
transmitted to the trial court for necessary
compliance.
----------
(2020)02ILR A787

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
788 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.02.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE B. AMIT STHALEKAR, J.
THE HON'BLE ALI ZAMIN, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 3653 of 2004

Laeeque @ Dharmanga
 ...Appellant (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Jitendra Pal Singh, Sri Gaurav Sharma,
Sri M.K. Shukla, Sri Sushil Pandey, Sri Vijai
Puri

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A.

A. Criminal Law-Indian Penal CodeSections 302, 504 . and Section 4/25 of
the Arms Act r/w 34 I.P.C.- Appeal against
conviction.

The point of number of persons sitting on the
slab at the time of the incident, evidence of
P.W.2 and P.W.4, the alleged eye witnesses is
contradictory. On points of sitting place of
witnesses, place of incident and seat of injury
to the deceased, statement of P.W.1, P.W.2
and P.W.4 are contradictory to each other. All
contradictions indicate that this witness is also
not an eye witness of the incident that is why
the above contradictory statements have been
made. (Para 17)

The spot map has been prepared by the I.O.
on the pointing out of the P.W.1, , the
informant. Therefore, from the evidence led by
the prosecution the place of incident is not
proved. (para 18)

The knife used in the incident has also not
been produced before the trial court. Forensic
report is not available on record, so that it can
be said that the knife was used in the incident
and it is linked with the incident. (Para 22)

In view of the above discussion, prosecution
has failed to prove its case against the
accused-appellant for commission of offence.
(Para 23)

Criminal Appeal allowed. (E-2)

List of cases cited:-

1. Syed Ibrahim vs. St. of A.P., (2006) 10 SCC
601,

2. Gautam Chaturvedi vs. St. of U.P., 2019 SCC
Online All 4307,

3. Raghubir and others vs. St. of U.P., 1996
ALL.L.J. 551

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ali Zamin, J).)

1. Heard Sri Gaurav Sharma, learned
counsel for the appellant and learned
A.G.A. for the State.

2. This is an appeal against the
judgment and order dated 30.06.2004
passed in S.T. No.373 of 2003 (State vs.
Laeeque @ Dharmanga & others) arising
out of Case Crime No.140 of 2003, under
Sections 302, 504 I.P.C. and S.T. No. 374
of 2003 arising out of Case Crime No.268
of 2003, under Section 4/25 of the Arms
Act registered at P.S. Puranpur, District
Pilibhit whereby the Additional Sessions
Judge, Court No.1, Pilibhit has convicted
the
accused
appellant
Laeeque
@
Dharmanga under Sections 302, 504 I.P.C.
and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act and
sentenced to undergo life imprisonment
under Section 302 I.P.C., one year
rigorous imprisonment under Section 504
I.P.C. and one year rigorous imprisonment
under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act and
acquitted Jalaluddin and Mashroof under
Section 302 I.P.C read with Section 34 and
504 I.P.C.
2 All. Laeeque @ Dharmanga Vs. State of U.P.
789

3. Prosecution case, in brief, is that
on 28.03.2003 at about 7:00 P.M. Akram
son of the informant Shamshuddin had
gone to Babboo Pradhan to take money.
On the slab, in front of the house of
Babboo Pradhan, Raffique, Aslam his son
and several persons of the Mohalla were
sitting.
At
that
time,
Laeeque
@
Dharmanga, Jalaluddin and Mashroof
came there. Laeeque @ Dharmanga
abusing his son Akram by saying that he
had pushed him at the time of filling
water, all of a sudden he took out a knife
and stabbed him on his chest. On the
shrieks of his son, the persons sitting on
the slab rushed there immediately and all
the three accused persons fled away.
Hearing shriek, informant also reached the
spot and he took his son to the hospital in
an injured condition where he succumbed
to his injuries. The incident has been
witnessed by the persons present on the
spot.

4. On the basis of the written report
(Ext.Ka-1) same day at 20.10 P.M., Chik FIR
(Ext.Ka-3) under Section 304, 504 read with
34 I.P.C. was registered and G.D. Entry
(Ext.Ka-4) was prepared. Investigation of the
case was entrusted to S.I., Rampal Singh
(P.W.9), who proceeded to the spot along with
S.I., S.D. Mahesh Prasad. He recorded the
statements of informant Shamshuddin, scribe
of written report and prepared spot map
(Ext.Ka-10) on the pointing out of the
informant. On his instruction S.I. Mahesh
Prasad prepared the inquest memo (Ext.Ka14). He also prepared challan lash, photo lash,
letter to the Chief Medical Officer, letter to R.I.
and Specimen Seal (Ext.Ka-15 to 19) and
dispatched the dead body for post mortem.

5. Dr. Vimal Kumar (P.W.3), conducted
autopsy on the body of the deceased and
prepared the post mortem report (Ext.Ka-2).
According to post-mortem report following
injuries were found on the body of the
deceased:

"1. Stab wound 2.8 cm x 1.2 cm x
chest cavity deep just below and lateral to left
nipple. Margin of wound are sharp."

In internal examination 5th rib deep
below the injury no. 1, was found cut. Left
lung was punctured. Left chamber of the heart
was incised as well, which was through and
through its wall. In the cavity of the left chest,
around 600 ml blood was found.

In opinion of the doctor death of the
deceased is possible on 28.03.2003 at 7.00
P.M. due to haemorrhage and shock caused by
aforesaid injury with a sharp edged weapon
like knife.

The death of the deceased is likely to
have occurred around 24 hours before the
conducting of the post mortem on 29.03.2003
at 3.30 P.M..

6. During investigation, on the
pointing out of the accused Laeeque @
Dharmanga,
Investigating
Officer
recovered the knife on 28.05.2003 and
prepared recovery memo (Ext.Ka-5). On
the basis of the recovery memo, first
information report under Section 4/25
Arms Act, Case Crime No. 268 of 2003
was
registered
at
21:10
P.M.
on
28.05.2003. Investigation of the case was
entrusted to S.I., Vivek Malik (P.W.8).
After
completing
investigation,
on
30.05.2003
the
investigating
officer
(P.W.9) of the Case Crime No. 140 of
2003 submitted charge-sheet (Ext.Ka-12)
under Sections 304, 504 and 34 I.P.C.
against
the
accused
Laeeque
@
Dharmanga, Jalaluddin and Mashroof.
Investigating Officer of Case Crime No.
268
of
2003
also
completing
the
investigation submitted charge-sheet under
790 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Section 4/25 of the Arms Act (Ex.Ka-9)
against
the
accused
Laeeque
@
Dharmanga on the same day.

7. Since the offence under Section
304 I.P.C. was exclusively triable by the
court of sessions, the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Pilibhit committed the accused
for trial to the court of sessions where the
Case Crime No.140 of 2003, under Section
304, 504 and 34 I.P.C. was registered as
S.T. No.373 of 2003 and Case Crime
No.268 under Section 4/25 of the Arms
Act was registered as S.T. No. 374 of
2003. The Sessions Judge made over the
above cases for trial to the Additional
Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Pilibhit.
Learned Additional Sessions Judge framed
charge under Section 302 and 504 I.P.C.
and 4/25 Arms Act against appellant.

8. Prosecution, to prove its case,
produced 9 (nine) witnesses namely, P.W.1
Shamshuddin, informant of the case, P.W.2
Aslam and P.W.4 Mohd. Rafique are the
witnesses of the fact. P.W.3 Dr. Vimal Kumar
conducted the autopsy of the deceased, P.W.5
Constable Narpat Singh, scribe of the F.I.R.,
Case No.140 of 2003, under Sections 304, 504
I.P.C. and P.W.6 Constable Raghunath Singh,
witness of the recovery of knife, P.W.7
Constable Har Prasad, scribe of F.I.R. Case
Crime No. 268 of 2003, under Section 4/25 of
the Arms Act and G.D., P.W.8 S.I. Vivek
Kumar Malik, Investigating Officer of Case
Crime No. 263 of 2003, under Section 4/25 of
the Arms Act and P.W.9 S.I. Rampal Singh,
Investigating Officer of Case Crime No.140 of
2003, under Sections 304, 504, 34 I.P.C. are
the formal witnesses of the case.

9. Statements of the accused persons
were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C..
Appellant-accused Laeeque @ Dharmanga in
his statement has stated that on account of
groupism the case proceeded against him.
Mashroof has stated that he does not know
why the case proceeded against him and
accused Jalaluddin has stated that case
proceeded against him due to enmity. Accused
persons led no evidence in their defence.

10. Learned Additional Sessions Judge
after hearing the argument of the parties and
perusal of the record has passed the impugned
judgment and order as disclosed in para 2 of
the judgment. Hence, the present appeal.

11. Learned counsel for the
appellant submits that according to
prosecution version incident took place
in front of the house of Babboo
Pradhan but P.W.9 Rampal Singh,
Investigating Officer has stated that
near the place of incident there is no
house of Babboo Pradhan and the place
of incident is not the house of Babboo
Pradhan. Therefore, place of incident is
not proved. He further submits that no
independent
witness
has
been
examined
although
according
to
prosecution,
four-five
independent
witnesses were present at the time of
incident.
From
the
prosecution
evidence recovery of knife is also
doubtful. Prosecution has miserably
failed to prove its case. Learned Trial
Judge without proper appreciation of
evidence has convicted the appellant,
which is not sustainable and it is liable
to set aside.

12. Per contra learned A.G.A.
submits that P.W.2 Aslam and P.W.4
Mohd. Rafique are the eye witnesses of
the incident and they have supported
the prosecution version. Learned Trial
Judge
properly
appreciating
the
evidence adduced by the prosecution
has
convicted
and
sentenced
the
2 All. Laeeque @ Dharmanga Vs. State of U.P.
791
appellant. No interference is required
by this Court.

13. From the evidence, it is evident
that Akram died of homicidal violence. It
is evident from the medical evidence
adduced in the evidence in the case. P.W.3
Dr. Vimal Kumar has prepared post
mortem report, Ext.Ka-2, according to
which an stab wound injury of 2.8 c.m. x
1.2 c.m. chest cavity deep below of lateral
left nipple and margin of wound was
found sharp. In internal examination 5th
rib was found cut and left lung was found
punctured. Cause of death was excess
bleeding and shock due to the ante mortem
injury. From the above, it is clear that
Akram died due to injury sustained by
him.

14. According to Ext.Ka-1, incident
occurred
at
about
7:00
P.M.
on
28.03.2003. Akram son of informant
Shamsuddin had gone to Babboo Pradhan.
In front of house of Babboo Pradahn on
the slab Mohd. Rafique, Aslam, the son of
informant and several persons were sitting,
at that time Laeeque @ Dharmanga,
Jalaluddin, Mashroof came there. Laeeque
@ Dharmanga abusing Akram, all of
sudden took out a knife and stabbed him
on his chest. On his shriek the persons
sitting on the slab rushed there to save him
but all the three accused persons fled
away. Hearing the shriek informant also
rushed to the place of incidence and took
him away to the hospital in injured
condition where he died.

15.

P.W.1
Shamshuddin
has
supported the first information report
version through his testimony and stated
that knife injury was caused to the left side
of the chest. In cross-examination on
asking that Jalaluddin and Mashroof were
involved in the assault, he has replied that
he could not see them causing the incident
and has admitted that on the telling of the
people he mentioned the wrong name in
the first information report. He has further
stated that he had seen the dead body at
the place of incidence. From the content of
Ext.Ka-1 and his deposition, it transpires
that he is not an eye witness of the incident
and has lodged the report on the telling by
others.

16. P.W.2 Aslam has stated that he
along with Mohd. Rafique and other
persons of the village was sitting on a slab
in front of the house of Babboo Pradhan.
His brother Akram had come to Babboo
Pradhan.
Laeeque
@
Dharmanga,
Jalaluddin and Mashroof also came there.
Laeeque @ Dharmanga abusing him, all of
sudden took out a knife and stabbed him
on the left side of his chest. On his shrieks
the witness and other persons sitting on the
slab rushed to him, but the accused
persons fled away towards north side. In
cross-examination he has stated that when
he heard shrieks he rushed to the place of
incidence. At the time of shrieks he was on
the road. He was at a distance of near
about 200 yards from the place where the
deceased was stabbed. When he reached
the spot, the crowd had not assembled,
only about four-five persons were present.
On hullabaloo his mother and father came
there. From his statement in crossexamination, it transpires that at the time
of the incident this witness was not sitting
on the said slab. Thus, the testimony of
P.W.2 Aslam is not supported by Ext.Ka1, regarding his sitting on the slab at the
time of incident. P.W.1 in his crossexamination has also stated that at the time
of incident there was less darkness. In that
situation being at a place situated at a
distance of 200 yards, it would not be
792 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
possible to see the incident. As such P.W.2
Aslam is also not an eye witness of the
incident.

17. P.W.4 Mohd. Rafique has been
produced by the prosecution as eye
witness of the incident, who has stated that
he was sitting on the slab on the side of the
Pradhan, whose name he does not know; at
that time Aslam, he and one more person
were sitting, whose name he is not able to
remember. Akram had come to take his
wage from the Pradhan, Laeeque @
Dharmanga, Jalaluddin and Mashroof also
came there. Laeeque @ Dharmanga started
abusing and catching the deceased Akram
stabbed him in his right side of the chest.
They rushed to rescue him but the accused
persons fled away. As per his statement,
he was sitting on a slab in front of house of
a person situated on the side of the house
of Pradhan and the place of incident is not
in front of house of Pradhan. He has also
stated that the accused stabbed the
deceased with a knife on the right side of
the chest, whereas according to statement
of P.W.1 Shamshuddin and P.W.2 Aslam
as well as post mortem report, Ex.Ka-2,
the injury to the deceased was caused on
the left side of the chest. As per statement
of P.W.2 Aslam, apart from him P.W.4
Mohd. Rafique and several persons were
sitting on the slab whereas as per P.W.4
Mohd. Rafique, alongwith him only P.W.2
Aslam and one other person were sitting
on the slab. Thus, on the point of number
of persons sitting on the slab at the time of
the incident, evidence of P.W.2 Aslam and
P.W.4 Mohd. Rafique, the alleged eye
witnesses is contradictory. On points of
sitting place of witnesses, place of incident
and seat of injury to the deceased,
statement of P.W.1 Shamshuddin, P.W.2
Aslam and P.W.4 Mohd. Rafique are
contradictory
to
each
other.
All
contradictions indicate that this witness is
also not an eye witness of the incident that
is why the above contradictory statements
have been made.

18. As per statement of P.W.1
Shamshuddin and P.W.2 Aslam incident
occurred in front of the house of Babboo
Pradhan. P.W.9 S.I. Rampal Singh, I.O., in
his cross-examination has stated that at the
place of incident there is no house of
Babboo Pradhan. In Ext.Ka-10, place of
incidence has been shown by mark 'X'.
Place of falling of deceased Akram is
shown by mark 'B'. Around mark 'X' and
mark 'B', no house of Babboo Pradhan has
been shown while the spot map has been
prepared by the I.O. on the pointing out of
the P.W.1, Shamshuddin, the informant.
Therefore, from the evidence led by the
prosecution the place of incident is not
proved.

19. In the case of Syed Ibrahim vs.
State of A.P., (2006) 10 SCC 601, P.W.1
therein had indicated four different places
to be the place of occurrence. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that when the place of
occurrence itself has not been established,
it would not be proper to accept the
prosecution version.

20. In Gautam Chaturvedi vs. State
of U.P., 2019 SCC Online All 4307, as per
F.I.R. the incident occurred when P.W.1
therein, his nephew P.W.4 Amit Gupta and
the
deceased
were
talking
amongst
themselves standing in the lane outside
their house, and the deceased parted
company to leave for some place where he
had to go. He had reached a point in front
of the house of Rajendra, bearing premises
no.2/32, when the appellant arrived in an
inebriated condition and after a sharp
exchange of words between appellant and
2 All. Laeeque @ Dharmanga Vs. State of U.P.
793
the deceased, the appellant stabbed him in
the presence of witnesses but in his dock
evidence, he stated that the appellant
arrived at the entrance to the deceased's
home, premises no.2/123, where after
some exchange of words, the appellant
stabbed the deceased. Therefore, it was
held that the prosecution has not been able
to
formally
establish
the
place
of
occurrence.

21. In the instant case as discussed
above, testimony of P.W.1, Shamshuddin,
P.W.2 Aslam and P.W.4 Mohd. Rafique
are not consistent with regard to sitting on
the slab situated in front of house of the
Babboo Pradhan, place of incident, seat of
injury to the deceased, sitting of persons
on the slab. According to the prosecution,
apart from appellant two more persons
also participated in the offence but
prosecution
failed
to
prove
their
participation.

22. According to P.W.9 S.I. Rampal
Singh, I.O., he recovered the knife used in
the incidence on pointing out of the
accused-appellant and prepared recovery
memo Ext.Ka-5. He has also proved spot
of recovery of knife as Ex.Ka-13. In cross
examination he has stated that the house
from which the recovery was made has
three doors. One is in the North side, one
is in the East side and one is in the West
side. He has also stated that towards door
of East there is a court-yard. P.W.8 S.I.
Vivek Malik, I.O. of the Case Crime No.
268 of 2003, under Section 4/25 Arms Act
has proved the spot of recovery as Ext.Ka8. According to Ex.Ka-8 as well Ex.Ka-13,
spot map prepared by P.W. 9 Rampal
himself, there is no door and courtyard
towards East side of the house. Thus,
testimony of P.W.9 S.I. Rampal Singh,
I.O. is contradictory to spot map Ex.Ka-8
and Ex.Ka-13. P.W. 8 S.I. Vivek Malik
also has recorded the statement of Zahoor
Ahmad and Irfan, who have not supported
the recovery of the knife. P.W.9 S.I.
Rampal Singh has also stated in the crossexamination that he prepared the spot map
on 15.06.2003 and proved it as Ext.Ka-13.
While knife was recovered on 28.05.2003
and investigation was entrusted to P.W.8
S.I. Vivek Malik. After entrustment of
investigation to P.W.8 S.I. Vivek Malik
preparing of the spot map by him on
15.06.2003 indicates that the investigation
is not fair. S.I. Vivek Malik (P.W.8) in his
cross-examination has admitted that S.I.
Rampal Singh is senior to him, who
recovered the knife. Investigation by a
junior officer in a case registered by a
senior officer also can not be said to be
fair as held by this Court in Raghubir and
others vs. State of U.P., 1996 ALL.L.J.
551. The knife used in the incident has
also not been produced before the trial
court. Forensic report is not available on
record, so that it can be said that the knife
was used in the incident and it is linked
with the incident.

23. In view of the above discussion,
we find that investigation of the case
relating to recovery is vitiated. There is no
evidence to prove that recovered knife was
used in the alleged incident. The evidence
adduced on the point of alleged recovery
also
does
not
inspire
confidence.
Consequently, recovery is not proved
beyond reasonable doubt.

In view of the above discussion,
prosecution has failed to prove its case
against
the
accused-appellant
for
commission of offence under Section 302,
504, I.P.C. and 4/25 Arms Act.

24. Therefore, on conspectus of facts
and circumstances of the case we find that
794 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
prosecution
evidence
of
P.W.
1
Shamshuddin
and
P.W.2
Aslam
is
inconsistent with P.W.4 Mohd. Rafique
regarding place of sitting of the witnesses,
place of the incident, seat of injury to the
deceased and persons sitting on the slab.
P.W.1 Shamshuddin, P.W.2 Aslam and
P.W.4 Mohd. Rafique are not eye
witnesses of the incident. Recovery of
knife on the pointing out of the appellant is
also not proved. The prosecution has
miserably failed to prove its case against
the appellant. The judgment and order
passed by the learned Trial Judge is,
therefore, not sustainable and is liable to
set aside.

The appeal is, therefore, allowed. The
impugned judgment and order mentioned
above convicting and sentencing the
appellant Laeeque @ Dharmanga is set
aside. He is acquitted of the charges under
Sections 302, 504 I.P.C. and 4/25 Arms
Act. The appellant is in jail. If he is not
wanted in any other case, he shall be
released forthwith provided he files his
personal bond and two sureties in
accordance with Section 437 (A) Cr.P.C.
to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.

Office is directed to communicate this
decision to the Court concerned forthwith
and send back the record.

Before concluding, this Court must
put on record its appreciation of the efforts
put in by Mr. Gaurav Sharma, learned
Amicus Curiae in providing valuable
assistance to the Court. It is, therefore,
directed that a sum of Rs. 15,000/- be paid
to Mr.Gaurav Sharma, learned Amicus
Curiae towards fees.

The above amount shall be paid to
Mr. Gaurav Sharma, learned Amicus
Curiae by the Registry of this Court within
15 days.
----------
(2020)02ILR A794
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.01.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE NAHEED ARA MOONIS, J.
THE HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-IX, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 4689 of 2009

Jawahar @ Babu Ram
 ...Appellant (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri B.K. Tripathi, Sri Pradeep Kumar-VI, Sri
Tarkeshwar Prasad Tripathi

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A.

A.
Criminal
Law-Indian
Penal
Code
Section 302 and Sections 25/27 of the Arms
Act,- Appeal against conviction.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant was unable to place before us as to
what in fact was the circumstances, which was
not put to the accused while recording his
statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. (Para 104)

The statement of the accused under Section
313 Cr.P.C., all incriminating materials were not
put to the accused, has no leg to stand. (Para
105)

In the instant case, the accused appellant has
brutally assassinated his father initially by firing
a shot and thereafter hacking him to death.
The accused-appellant is also involved in the
commission of murder of his step mother for
which trial is pending in the court below. This is
a case of patricide where the accused-appellant
has not only committed the murder of an
innocent old and feeble person, but also slurred
the relation of father and son. (Para 106)

Criminal Appeal rejected. (E-2)

List of cases cited: