# Mahesh Rathaur v. State of U.P. Opp. Party

- **Citation:** (2022) 9 ILRA 1307
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-09-07
- **Case number:** Crl. Appl. No. 2867 of 2013
- **Bench:** Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Shiv Shanker Prasad
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mahesh-rathaur-v-state-of-u-p-opp-party-48987
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,1860 -
Section 376 -victim -11 year old-allege
1308 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
attempt to rape -Medical-hymen torn and no
mark of injury in her private parts-no definite
opinion of rape-Informant for the first time-after
9 months- in his St.ment before Trial court-St.d
that rape has been committed-later victim also
St.d that rape was committed-accused charged
u/s 376 IPC clear improvement in prosecution
version-no explanation why disclosure was not
made-offence of attempt to rape u/s 376/511
IPC is proved beyond reasonable doubtconviction altered from section 376 to section
376/511 IPC.

Appeal partly allowed. (E-9)

## Text

9 All. Mahesh Rathaur Vs. State of U.P.
1307
the appellant was tried alongwith coaccused,
Suresh,
who
has
preferred
Criminal Appeal No. 767 of 2015 before
this court. The appellant and co-accused,
Suresh were convicted under section 302
I.P.C. for life imprisonment and for other
offences etc. and the Criminal Appeal No.
767 of 2015 preferred by co-accused,
Suresh has been partially allowed by a Coordinate Bench of this court vide judgment
and order dated 30-06-2016 and the
conviction awarded under section 302
I.P.C. was modified to section 304 I.P.C.
and sentence for life imprisonment was
also modified to the period of 14 years in
the case of co-accused Suresh.

(45) Learned counsel for the
appellant has also contended that the
present appellant-Lalaram has already
undergone imprisonment as under trial
and after conviction for about 15 years in
jail, therefore, the present appeal may
also be allowed partly in view of the
judgment and order dated 30-06-2016
passed in Criminal Appeal No. 767 of
2015 preferred by Co-accused-Suresh.

(46)

In
present
case
after
considering the circumstances presented
before the trial Court and before this
Court during hearing of appeal, it appears
appropriate that the conviction under
Section 302 IPC and sentence for it
should be converted in conviction under
Section 304 IPC only and its sentence
should not exceed more than 15 years'
imprisonment.

(47) Likewise this Court found it
appropriate that conviction for charge
under Section 307 IPC should be
mitigated in present set of circumstances
to 7 years' imprisonment which would
serve the ends of justice.

(48) In view of above facts and
discussion, the conviction under Section
302 IPC imposed on the appellant-Lalaram
is hereby modified under Section 304 IPC,
and the sentence of imprisonment for life is
modified to period of imprisonment for 15
years. The conviction and sentence under
Section 3/25 Arms Act imposed on the
appellant is confirmed.

(49) With the aforesaid modification
of conviction, punishment and sentence, the
appeal is partly allowed in terms of the
judgment and order dated 30-06-2016
passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in Criminal Appeal No. 767 of 2015.
Sentences will run concurrently.

(50) Let the copy of this judgment as
well as lower Court record be sent to the
trial Court for necessary information and
ensuring compliance.
----------
(2022) 9 ILRA 1307
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.
THE HON'BLE SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, J.

Crl. Appl. No. 2867 of 2013

Mahesh Rathaur ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opp. Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Sushil Kumar Dubey, Sri Shivanand Mishra,
Sri V.K. Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
Govt. Advocate

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,1860 -
Section 376 -victim -11 year old-allege
1308 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
attempt to rape -Medical-hymen torn and no
mark of injury in her private parts-no definite
opinion of rape-Informant for the first time-after
9 months- in his St.ment before Trial court-St.d
that rape has been committed-later victim also
St.d that rape was committed-accused charged
u/s 376 IPC clear improvement in prosecution
version-no explanation why disclosure was not
made-offence of attempt to rape u/s 376/511
IPC is proved beyond reasonable doubtconviction altered from section 376 to section
376/511 IPC.

Appeal partly allowed. (E-9)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Shiv Shanker
Prasad, J.)

1. This appeal has been preferred by
appellant, Mahesh Rathaur against the
judgment and order dated 30th May, 2013
passed by the Special Judge/Additional
Sessions Judge, Etawah in Sessions Trial
No. 167 of 2012 (State Vs. Mahesh
Rathaur), arising out of Crime No. 234 of
2012, under Sections 323,376 and 506
I.P.C., Police Station-Bakevar, DistrictEtawah, whereby the accused-appellant has
been convicted and sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for life for the offence
punishable under Section 376 I.P.C. with a
fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default thereof,
to further undergo six months simple
imprisonment.

2. We have heard Mr. Shiva Nand
Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the
accused-appellant
and
Mr.
Arunendra
Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State as also
perused the entire materials available on
record.

3. The prosecution story, as reflected
from the records, is as follows:

On the basis of oral report made by the
informant/P.W.-4, namely, Mr. Yasin Ali, a
case being Crime No. 234 of 2012 under
Sections 323,376/511 and 506 I.P.C. was
registered on 5th April, 2012 at 03:20 p.m.
at Police Station-Bakevar, District Etawah
alleging therein that on 3rd April, 2012 at
about 03:00 p.m., the daughter of the
informant (hereinafter referred to as the
"victim"), aged about 11 years, who was
studying in Class-V), along with her
younger brother, namely, Ansar aged about
7 years, went to jungle/ravine situated
outside the village for collecting woods,
where the accused-appellant, who was
already
present
there,
with
an
evil
intention, grabbed the victim and dragged
her inside the jungle/ravine and he
attempted to rape her. It is also alleged that
when the victim protested, she was
assaulted and threatened not to disclose
about the incident to her parents. After
coming to her house, the victim informed
her mother about the said incident. It is
further
alleged
that
since
the
first
informant-P.W.4 had gone to his relative's
place and returned only on 5th April, 2012,
therefore, as soon as he came to know
about the incident, he has come to the
Police Station for lodging his report. On the
basis of the aforesaid report, the victim was
taken to the hospital by Women Constables,
namely, Sunita Devi and Pinki Devi for her
medical examination, where Dr. Jyotsana
Bhatia (P.W.-1) examined the victim
internally and for external injuries, she was
referred to Emergency Medical Officer. Dr.
Jai Prakash Chaudhari (P.W.-3) examined
the external injuries of the victim. For
knowing the correct age of the victim, she
was referred to the District Hospital,
Etawah for X-ray, where Dr. Dinesh Singh
conducted the same.

4. Dr. Jyotsana Bhatia (P.W.-1), who
conducted the medical examination of the
victim internally, has opined that her
9 All. Mahesh Rathaur Vs. State of U.P.
1309
hymen was torn and no mark of any injury
in her private parts was found nor any
bleeding was otherwise found in her private
parts. On the basis of said medical
examination, no definite opinion about rape
was given by P.W.-1. As per the X-ray
report, the victim was found to be 11 years
of age. Report of the Internal examination
of the victim is as follows:

"Hymen torn, vagina admits one
finger, vaginal smear taken and send to
pathologist. No mark of injury on private
parts. No bleeding. P/V. She has not
attained menarche."

5. Dr. Jai Prakash Chaudhari (P.W.-3),
who examined the external injuries of the
victim, has found following four injuries on
the body of the victim:

"(i) abrasion size 3 cm x 0.5 cm on
outer aspect left arm, 18 cm. Above left
elbow; dark brownish red scab formed,
(ii) abrasion 2 cm long linear lie on back of
left elbow; dark brownish red scab formed,
(iii) contusion size 4 x 2 cm on dorsum of
left hand & 2 cm. above left wrist, bluish
black, and
(iv) contusion 2 x 1.5 cm. on front of left
leg, 7 cm below left knee, bluish black."

In the opinion of P.W.3, all the above
injuries found on the body of the victim,
are simple in nature.

6. The statement of the first
informant/P.W.-4 along with that of the
victim/P.W.-5 was recorded under Section
161 Cr.P.C. by the Investigating Officer.
Thereafter charge-sheet was submitted
against
the
accused
appellant
under
Sections 323, 376/511 and 506 I.P.C. The
Magistrate concerned took cognizance of
the charge-sheet and as the offence was
triable by the court of Sessions, the same
was committed to the Court of Sessions.
Consequently, Sessions Trial No. 167 of
2012 (State Vs. Mahesh Rathaur) was
registered in the matter. The trial proceeded
in the matter and the statements of various
witnesses were recorded.

7. It was the first time that when the
informant was produced as P.W.-4, he in his
statement made before the trial court on
2nd January, 2013, which was completed
on 19th March, 2013, has stated that the
offence of rape was committed by the
accused-appellant upon the victim instead
of attempt to rape, as disclosed earlier in
the first information report and the
statements recorded under Section 161
Cr.P.C. and thereafter, the victim, who was
produced before the Court as P.W.-5, in her
statement made on 7th March,2013 has
stated that she was raped by the accusedappellant. On the basis of aforesaid
statements of P.W.-4 and P.W.-5, the
charges were altered on 14th March, 2013
so as to delete Section 511 I.P.C. and the
accused-appellant
was
charged
under
Section 376 I.P.C., whereas initially, in
view of the framing of charge order dated
9th December, 2012, the accused-appellant
was charged under Sections 323, 376/511
and 506 I.P.C. It is thereafter that the trial
proceeded
and
statements
of
other
witnesses were recorded in the matter.

8. In order to bring home the charge,
the prosecution has adduced the evidence
of Dr. Jyotsana Bhatia as P.W.-1, who has
stated
that
she
has
conducted
the
preliminary medical examination of victim
and latter referred her for examination of
external injuries to the Emergency Medical
Officer.
P.W.-1
has
stated
in
her
examination-in-chief that in the internal
examination conducted by her, she found
1310 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that the hymen was torn and no mark of
any injuries in private parts of the victim
was found.

9. Head Police Constable-13, namely,
Nathu Ram, who has proved that Chik first
information report, has been adduced as
P.W.-2. He has stated that he entered the
contents of the oral report of the informant
in
the
General
Diary.
P.W.-2
has
categorically
stated
in
his
crossexamination that he had correctly recorded
the complaint of first informant (P.W.-4),
who has also been read out of the
complaint, on which he has affixed his
thumb impression. P.W.-2 has clearly stated
that he was informed by the informant
(P.W.-4) that the daughter of the victim
(P.W.-5)
was
dragged
inside
the
jungle/ravine and raped was attempted
upon her by the accused-appellant. No
external injuries were otherwise noticed by
him on the victim.

10. Dr. Jai Prakash Chaudhary, who
has examined the external injuries of the
victim, has been adduced as P.W.-3. He has
stated that on examination of the victim, he
found four injuries on the body of the
victim, which has been quoted herein above
and in his opinion, the same are simple in
nature.

11. Yasin Ali, informant, who is father
of the victim, has been adduced as P.W.-4
on 2nd January, 2013 (whose statement has
been completed on 19th March, 2013). He
has supported the prosecution story by
stating that the victim was forcibly taken in
the jungle/ravine and she was raped by the
accused-appellant. It is further stated that
this fact was disclosed by the victim to her
mother just after the incident but the
informant was informed by the mother of
the victim about the same when he returned
from the place of his relative. In the said
statement, P.W.-4 claims to have informed
the
Police
personnel
about
the
commissioning of the offence of rape upon
the victim but in that event it was not
recorded in the first information report, he
cannot yet give any reason.

12. Victim has also been adduced as
P.W.5 on 7th March, 2013, who has fully
supported the prosecution story by stating
that he was forcibly dragged by the
accused-appellant in the jungle/ravine and
was raped. In her cross-examination, the
victim/P.W.-5 has admitted that her father
(informant-P.W.4) was working in the
agricultural field of Chandu Bajpai, who
had contested the election of the post of
Village Pradhan, who had lost to Nawab
Singh and that the accused, his brother and
other family members were in the party of
Nawab Singh. She has also stated that
when the cattle herders and other people
including Shiv Bharat came to the spot,
Mahesh was on her body and seeing them,
he ran away. No one has tried to catch him.
All the persons had seen the condition of
the victim.

13. The Investigating Officer, SubInspector
Malkhan
Singh
has
been
examined as P.W.-6, who has clearly stated
that the victim had not disclosed the factum
of rape in her statement recorded by the
Police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He has
further stated that the blood stained clothes
of the victim (P.W.-5) were also not
provided to the Investigating Officer and no
recovery memo in that regard was made.
He has categorically stated that on the basis
of evidence collected during investigation,
he did not found the offence of rape
committed in the matter and on the basis of
statement of victim at best a case of attempt
to rape was commissioned and therefore,
9 All. Mahesh Rathaur Vs. State of U.P.
1311
charge-sheet was filed in that regard. P.W.-
6 has also stated that the first informant in
his statement recorded under Section 161
Cr.P.C. has also not disclosed about the
commissioning of offence of rape upon the
victim.

14. After recording of the prosecution
evidence, the statement of the accusedappellant was also recorded under Section
313 Cr.P.C. in which he has denied his
involvement in the alleged offence and
denied
the
allegation/charge. Accused
appellant has specifically stated before the
trial court that due to village party bandi, he
has been falsely implicated in this case and
he is otherwise, innocent. The defence did
not examine any witness from its side.

15. From the material placed on
record, it does not appear that the statement
of the victim (P.W.-5) was recorded under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. upon the Magistrate
concerned and in her statement recorded by
the Police under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she
had only disclosed about the offence of
attempt
of
rape
and
not
actual
commissioning of offence of rape.

16. The trial court on the basis of
evidence adduced during the course of trial,
has found the offence under Section 376
I.P.C. to have been committed against the
victim and consequently, has awarded
sentence of life imprisonment along with
fine of Rs. 10,000/- .

17. Aggrieved by the aforesaid
judgment and order of conviction and
sentence, the accused-appellant is before
this Court by means of the present criminal
appeal.

18. Mr. Shivanand Mishra, learned
counsel appearing for the accused-appellant
submits that as per the prosecution version,
the alleged incident took place on 3rd
April, 2012 at 03:00 p.m. whereas the first
information report has been lodged by the
informant/P.W.-4 on 5th April, 2012 at
03:20 P.M. i.e. three days delay for which
no plausible explanation has been given by
the prosecution.

19. Learned counsel for the accusedappellant also submits that the victim in her
statement recorded under Section 161
Cr.P.C. by the Police had only alleged
attempt to rape and had not disclosed about
any actual act of rape committed upon her.
He further submits that the accusedappellant has been falsely implicated and
that the medical report does not support the
commissioning of rape upon the victim. As
per the medical examination report of the
victim, neither there was any mark of
injury in the private parts of her body nor
any bleeding was noticed. He then submits
that the hymen of the victim was otherwise
found torn. Learned counsel for the
accused-appellant submits that the accusedappellant has been falsely implicated in the
present case only on account of village
enmity, as he had supported Nawab Singh,
who won the election on the post of Village
Pradhan against Chandu Bajpai, for whom
the
first
informant
(P.W.-4)
worked.
Learned counsel for the accused-appellant
next submits that in the first information
report as also in the statements of the
witnesses
including
the
victim
and
informant recorded under Sections 161
Cr.P.C., the disclosure is only about attempt
to rape and that is why, the charge-sheet
was submitted under Sections 323, 506 and
376/511
I.P.C.
against
the
accusedappellant. Submission is that nearly after
eleven months from the date of lodging of
the first information report to be precise on
5th April, 2012 and after nearly nine
1312 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
months from the date of recording of
statements of the victim and informant
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. it was the first
time that when the informant was produced
as P.W.-4, he in his statement recorded
before the trial court on 2nd January, 2013,
which was completed on 19th March, 2013,
has stated that the offence of rape was
committed by the accused-appellant upon
the victim and thereafter, the victim, who
was adduced before the Court as P.W.-5, in
her statement recorded before the trial court
on 7th March,2013, has stated that she was
raped
by
the
accused-appellant. The
aforesaid change in the version of the
prosecution
(statements
of
P.W.-4
informant and P.W.-5 victim) clearly
indicates that it is a case of improvement.
Such improvement has only been made by
the prosecution only to falsely implicate the
accused-appellant. The subsequent change
of stand of the victim does not find any
corroboration from the material available
on record, and therefore, the trial court has
grossly erred in relying upon the statement
of the victim as P.W.5, where statement
ought to have been subjected to greater
scrutiny. It is also argued by the learned
counsel for the accused-appellant that in
such circumstances, the conviction of the
accused-appellant under Section 376 I.P.C.
cannot be legally sustained. On the
cumulative strength of the aforesaid,
learned counsel for the accused-appellant
submits that the impugned judgment and
order of conviction is liable to be quashed.

20. Learned A.G.A., on the other
hand, has supported the prosecution version
and submits that the statement of the victim
is credible in the facts and circumstances of
the case and since she has clearly disclosed
about the commissioning of the offence of
rape, therefore, the trial court has not
committed any error in recoding conviction
of the accused-appellants under Section
376 I.P.C.

21. It is in the context of above facts
that the present appeal has come up before
us for hearing.

22.

We
have
considered
the
submissions made by the learned counsel
for the parties and have gone through the
records of the present appeal specially the
judgment and order of conviction and the
evidence adduced before the trial court.

23. The facts as have been noticed
above would clearly go to show that a first
information report was lodged on 5th April,
2012 in respect of the incident of 3rd April,
2012 on the oral complaint of the first
informant, namely, Yasin Ali. Thumb
impression of the informant has been
affixed on the report, which contains the
allegations about the attempt of rape being
committed upon the victim by the accusedappellant. The first information report does
not contain any allegation with regard to
actual commissioning of rape. Medical
examination report of the victim, which has
been submitted by Dr. Jyotsana Bhatia
(P.W.-1), who has examined the victim
internally, shows that neither there was any
mark of injury in the private parts of the
body of the victim nor any bleeding was
observed but hymen of the victim was
otherwise found torn. On the basis of such
report, the Doctor has clearly opined that
no definite opinion about the rape can be
given in the matter. We further find from
the records that the statements of the victim
as also her father i.e. informant were
recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in
which they have alleged only about the
attempt of rape upon the victim and there is
no allegation in their statements about the
actual
commissioning
of
rape.
The
9 All. Mahesh Rathaur Vs. State of U.P.
1313
Investigating Officer (P.W.-6) and the Head
Police Constable Nathu Ram (P.W.-2), who
has proved the chik first information report
have also clearly stated that the first
informant only alleged attempt to rape
upon the victim in his complaint and has
never claimed about actual rape being
committed upon the victim. It is on the
basis of contents of first information report
as also the statements of the witnesses
including the victim and informant under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. that the charge-sheet
was submitted under Sections 323, 506 and
376/511 I.P.C. in the matter on 18th April,
2012.

24. It is almost after nine months of
the alleged incident which took place on
3rd April, 2012 that for the first time, the
informant in his statement recorded before
the trial court as P.W.4 on 2nd January,
2012 and therefore, in the statement of
victim as P.W.5 on 7th March, 2013, they
have come up with a different story of
actual commissioning of rape. However,
the
complaint
made
orally
by
the
informant-P.W.-4 did not contain any
allegation with regard to rape upon the
victim.

25. In the facts and circumstances of
the case, we do not find the statements of
the informant and the victim made for the
first time before the trial court as P.W.-4
and P.W.-5 about the commissioning of
offence under Section 376 I.P.C., reliable or
convincing. We find that the statements of
the first informant-P.W.4 and the victimP.W.5 about commissioning of offence of
rape, appears to be clear improvement in
the prosecution version, inasmuch as no
plausible explanation has been put forth as
to why such disclosure was not made, when
the first information report itself was
lodged or when the statements of such
witnesses
including
the
victim
and
informant
were
recorded
by
the
Investigating Officer under Section 161
Cr.P.C. Even at the time of framing of
charge i.e. 9th October, 2012, such facts
were not disclosed by the first informant or
the victim. The statement made by the
informant for the first time in Court as
P.W.-4 on 2nd January, 2013, after nearly
nine months from the date of alleged
incident of commissioning of offence,
therefore, does not inspire confidence of
the Court. It may also be noticed that the
accused appellant has asserted in his
statement recorded under Section 313
Cr.P.C. that he has been falsely implicated
on account of enmity relating to election on
the post of Village Pradhan and the victim
in her cross-examination has also admitted
that her father was supporting Chandu
Bajpai for whom he worked, who had lost
election of the said post to Nawab Singh to
whom the accused-appellant and his family
members supported.

26. Subsequent statements of the
victim-P.W.-5
and
informant-P.W.4,
therefore, do not appear to be reliable,
particularly when it is otherwise not
supported by medical evidence.

27. So far as the charge under Section
376/511
I.P.C.
against
the
accusedappellant is concerned, we find that the first
information report does contain specific
allegations in that regard and the victim
along with other witnesses have also
supported such allegations. From the
medical examination report of the victim
submitted by Dr. J.P. Chaudhary (P.W.-3),
who examined her externally, there were
two marks of abrasion as also two marks of
contusion on the body of the victim, which
are, in the opinion of P.W.-3, were about 48
hours old.
1314 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

28. From the statement of the victim,
coupled with the marks of injuries sustained
by her and the statements of other witnesses,
we find that the charge originally framed
against the accused-appellant of attempt to
rape under Section376/511 I.P.C. is proved
beyond reasonable doubt.

29. In view of the above discussions,
the present appeal succeeds in part. The
conviction of the accused-appellant is altered
from Section 376 I.P.C. to Section 376/511
I.P.C. and in view of the provisions contained
in Section 57 I.P.C., the accused appellant is
sentenced to undergo 10 years imprisonment.
The imposition of fine upon the appellant. as
was imposed under the impugned judgment
and order of conviction, is, however,
sustained.

30. Accordingly, the present appeal
stands partly allowed.

31. In the event, the accused-appellant
has already served the aforesaid sentence i.e.
10 years as on date, he shall be released on
compliance of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. and
payment of fine, unless he is wanted in any
other case.
----------
(2022) 9 ILRA 1314
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.
THE HON'BLE SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, J.

Jail Appeal No. 3520 of 2010

Babu Ram Maurya ...Appellant
Versus
State ...Opp. Party

Counsel for the Appellant:
From Jail, Sri Om Prakash Mishra, Sri Kumar
Kartikay(A.C.)

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

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code-,1860 -
Section 302 - Benefit of doubt-Informant
found a naked body of an unknown womenincised injury marks on abdomen, private parts
and face-Trial Court not carefully examined
St.ments
of
prosecution
witnesses-for
determining whether an alternate hypothesis
other than the guilt of accused exist-fallacy in
recovery-improper evaluation of motive-Trial
Court's judgment unsustainable-Accused entitled
to benefit of doubt.

Appeal allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs St. of Mah.,
(1984) 4 SCC 116

2. Ram Niwas Vs St. of Hary., 2022 SCC On Line
SC 1007
(Delivered by Hon'ble Shiv Shanker
Prasad, J.)

1. This jail appeal has been preferred
by the appellant, Babu Ram Maurya
challenging the judgment and order dated
17th April, 2010 passed by the Special
Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act)/
Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly passed
in Sessions Trial No. 117 of 2008 (State vs.
Babu Ram Maurya) under Sections 302 and
201 I.P.C. as also in Sessions Trial No. 118
of 2008 (State Vs. Babu Ram Maurya)
under Sections 4/25 Arm Act, arising out of
Crime No. 870 of 2007, Police StationSubhash Nagar, District-Bareilly, whereby
the accused-appellant has been convicted
and
sentenced
to
undergo
(i)
life
imprisonment under Section 302 I.P.C. with
fine of Rs. 20,000/-, in default thereof, he
has to further undergo two years additional