# Mangali & Ors. (In Jail) v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2021) 10 ILRA 90
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-10-07
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 291 of 1983
- **Bench:** Arvind Kumar Mishra-I, Naveen Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mangali-ors-in-jail-v-state-of-u-p-46426
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Law
-
appeal
against
conviction - The Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Section - 302/34, 201 - motive - ante-
10 All. Mangali & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
91
mortem injuries cannot be ascertained
because of the charred parts of the body -
no corroboration of the incident from any
independent source - relevancy of the
motive assumes wider dimension insofar
as the present appellant is concerned and
in that regard, the position of other coaccused, vis-a-vis- the appellant becomes
entirely different - Only a casual reference
of relationship that appellant is a distant
relative of co-accused would not be suffice
to prove the fact of appellant being
relative. Para -8,15 ,27,28)

Informant and his nephew - going for sowing
field - enmity, on account of litigation for the
landed property - some altercation taken place
between informant's nephew - motive - accused
killed
informant's
nephew
bullock-cart
by
throwing him into the burning thatch -
conviction against the accused-appellant - hence
appeal.

HELD:-Prosecution has not been able to prove
its case beyond reasonable doubt against the
surviving appellant. He is entitled to the benefit
of doubt. Finding of conviction recorded against
the appellant by the trial court is perverse and
illegal on its face, which is not sustainable, for
simple reason that there was no worthy cause
for the appellant to commit crime along with the
other three co-accused. Judgment and order of
conviction and sentence set aside. (Para -
31,32)

Criminal Appeal allowed. (E-7)

## Text

90 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
then it would be waste of time to put him
up for identification and trial will not be
vitiated as the testimony of the injured
witness cannot be discredited.

13.7. Final submission of the
learned counsel for the appellants is that it is a
case of single shot which is alleged to be done
by each appellant, therefore, conviction under
Section 302 I.P.C. may be altered in Section
304 Part II I.P.C. and sentence of the
appellants be reduced in the interest of justice;
but as per the deposition of P.W.1, who is the
injured eye witness, appellants followed him
and his friend Rajesh from Allahabad and at
an isolated place took advantage by saying that
fuel in their motorcycle is finished and asked
for
some
petrol,
and
when
Rajesh
(deceased/friend of P.W.1) came down and
started taking out petrol from his motorcycle,
then a shot was fired by Manoj Soni at him
and at the same time, appellant Umesh Mishra
also shot fire on the P.W.1 and thereafter,
looted them. In the said incident, P.W.1 and
his friend received grievous injuries and later
on, because of the said injury, Rajesh (friend
of P.W.1) died. As the motive and the conduct
of the appellants reveals that they were in
premeditated mind with the common intention
to kill the injured and loot the ornaments,
therefore, the submission of learned counsel
for the appellants has no force.

14. In view of the above discussion, the
appellants failed to establish their case, and
there is no illegality in the judgment and
order dated 16.12.2010 passed by Additional
Sessions
Judge/F.T.C.,
Court
No.9,
Pratapgarh.

15. Accordingly, both the appeals are
hereby dismissed.

16. From perusal of the record, it
appears that the appellant namely, Umesh
Kumar Mishra is on bail. His bail bonds is
cancelled and sureties are discharged. He is
directed to surrender in the court below
forthwith to serve out the sentence awarded
by the learned trial court, failing which, trial
court is directed to take all coercive steps for
taking him in custody and sent to jail.

17.

In
the
connected
appeal,
appellant-Manoj Kumar Soni @ Manu
Verma is in jail. He shall serve out the
sentence awarded by the trial court.

18. Let the lower court record along
with the present order be transmitted to the
trial
court
concerned
for
necessary
information and compliance forthwith.

19. District & Sessions Judge,
Pratapgarh is directed to ensure the
communication of this order to the
appellant-Manoj Kumar Soni @ Manu
Verma at his confinement place.
----------
(2021)10ILR A90
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.10.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA-I, J.
THE HON'BLE NAVEEN SRIVASTAVA, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 291 of 1983

Mangali & Ors. ...Appellants(In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, Sri Rajarshi Gupta

Counsel for the Respondent:
Govt. Advocate

(A)
Criminal
Law
-
appeal
against
conviction - The Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Section - 302/34, 201 - motive - ante-
10 All. Mangali & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
91
mortem injuries cannot be ascertained
because of the charred parts of the body -
no corroboration of the incident from any
independent source - relevancy of the
motive assumes wider dimension insofar
as the present appellant is concerned and
in that regard, the position of other coaccused, vis-a-vis- the appellant becomes
entirely different - Only a casual reference
of relationship that appellant is a distant
relative of co-accused would not be suffice
to prove the fact of appellant being
relative. Para -8,15 ,27,28)

Informant and his nephew - going for sowing
field - enmity, on account of litigation for the
landed property - some altercation taken place
between informant's nephew - motive - accused
killed
informant's
nephew
bullock-cart
by
throwing him into the burning thatch -
conviction against the accused-appellant - hence
appeal.

HELD:-Prosecution has not been able to prove
its case beyond reasonable doubt against the
surviving appellant. He is entitled to the benefit
of doubt. Finding of conviction recorded against
the appellant by the trial court is perverse and
illegal on its face, which is not sustainable, for
simple reason that there was no worthy cause
for the appellant to commit crime along with the
other three co-accused. Judgment and order of
conviction and sentence set aside. (Para -
31,32)

Criminal Appeal allowed. (E-7)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arvind Kumar
Mishra-I, J.)

1. Heard Sri Rajarshi Gupta, learned
Amicus Curiae for the appellants, Sri
Bhanu Prakash Singh and Sri Rajeev
Kumar Rai, learned Brief Holders for the
State and perused the material available on
record.

2. By way of instant criminal appeal,
challenge
has
been
made
to
the
authenticity, veracity and sustainability of
the judgment and order of conviction dated
31.1.1983, passed by the Sessions Judge,
Budaun in Sessions Trial No. 176 of 1982
(State vs. Mangli and others), arising out of
Case Crime No. 194 of 1981, Police Station
- Rajpura, District - Budaun, whereby the
appellants have been sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for life under Section -
302/34 I.P.C. and two years rigorous
imprisonment under Section - 201 I.P.C.

3. Record reflects that out of the four
accused-appellants, accused-appellant no.1-
Mangli, accused-appellant no.2- Rajendra
and accused-appellant no.3- Toofan expired
during the pendency of this appeal. This
appeal
against
them
stood
abated
previously.

4. Now, in this appeal, Pannoo is
appellant no.4, the only surviving accusedappellant, whose case has been argued by
Sri Rajarshi Gupta, the learned Amicus
Curiae.

5. Brief facts of the prosecution case,
as discernible from record appear to be that
an oral report was lodged at Police Station -
Rajpura in Sub-District - Gunnaur, District
- Budaun on 29.10.1981 at about 10:00
A.M., regarding some incident that took
place in Village - Pavsara within the
aforesaid police station with the averments
that the informant - Latoori son of Natthu
Ahar, resident of Village - Pavsara within
police station - Rajpura narrated about the
incident that the morning, when the
informant and his nephew- Aaram Singh,
Shyam Lal and Tilak Singh were going for
sowing the field of Aaram Singh who was
moving ten steps ahead of him on bullockcart and as soon as the informant along
with others reached near the field of
Pannoo and Shyam Lal, then Mangli and
Pannoo
possessing
'lathi',
Rajendra
92 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
possessing gun in their hands and Toofan
possessing spear in his hands appeared
from behind the bushes. Mangli, Toofan
and Pannoo assaulted Aaram Singh with
'lathi' and spear, due to which, Aaram
Singh sustained injuries and rendered
unconscious. On alarm being raised, Sardar
and Ram Swaroop arrived on the spot. The
informant tried to intervene but was
threatened on gun point by Rajendra.
Thereafter, the accused put Aaram Singh in
his bullock-cart and took him to their
(House of Mangli) home. The informant
along with villagers followed them and
arrived at the house of the accused, where
they saw the thatched roof of the house of
the accused (Mangli) under fire and
Rajendra was standing on the roof of the
house with gun and threatening that in case,
anyone comes forward, he will be killed.
The accused burnt Aaram Singh and
bullock-cart
in
the
burning
thatched
covering. It was also stated by the
informant that enmity, on account of
litigation, is going on and in that
connection some altercation had taken
place between the informant's nephew-
Aaram Singh and the accused and on
account of that (enmity), accused killed
Aaram Singh by throwing him into the
burning thatch. The informant rushed to the
police station and oral report was lodged
around 10:00 a.m., which was noted in the
Check F.I.R. at Case Crime No. 194 of
1981, under Sections - 302, 201 I.P.C. on
29.10.1981 (at 10:00 a.m.) at Police Station
- Rajpura, District - Budaun, the report was
read over to the informant when he
appended his signature on it, which is Ext.
Ka.1. On the basis of entries so made, a
case was registered in the concerned
general diary under at case crime number
under the aforesaid sections of I.P.C. on the
aforesaid date and time at Police Station -
Rajpura, which is Ext. Ka.3.

6. Inquest report in that regard of the
burnt piece of human flesh was prepared on
the spot on 29.10.1981, which is Ext. Ka.8.
The relevant papers prepared on the spot
pertaining to the dead body are Ext. Ka.9
and Ext. Ka.10. Similarly, letter to C.M.O.
for postmortem is Ext. Ka.11, specimen
signature is Ext. Ka.12.

7. The witnesses and the Investigating
Officer concurred that in order to ascertain
the real cause of death, the piece of burnt
flesh be sent for postmortem examination.
Consequently, postmortem examination on
the dead body (burnt piece of flesh) of
Aaram Singh was conducted on 30.10.1981
at 5:00 p.m. at mortuary Budaun. It was
stated that cause of death could not be
ascertained as only charred parts of body
were available which appeared to be of
adult human but the same was preserved
for further confirmation by anatomist.
Even, sex could not be determined, exact
age
could
not
be
ascertained.
The
postmortem examination report is Ext.
Ka.2.

8. The body was not identifiable
because it was reduced to the burnt
skeleton without specification of age and
sex. Relevant to mention that ante-mortem
injuries cannot be ascertained because of
the charred parts of the body.

9. The investigation was entrusted to
Hari Maya Sharma, the Station Incharge,
Police Station - Rajpura. The oral report
was lodged by the informant - Latoori,
when this witness (I.O.) was present at the
police station. The I.O. recorded statement
of informant- Latoori at the police station
itself and proceeded to the place of
occurrence by government jeep at Village -
Madhaiya Pavsara at the house of Mangli,
where he found the thatch of Mangli under
10 All. Mangali & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
93
flames which has been depicted in the siteplan by word (B). He got the fire got
extinguished by pouring water on it and
upon search being made, a part of flesh of
human being was discovered. A memo of
the same was prepared, which is Ext. Ka.4.
A part of the underwear was also found
stuck to this human flesh. At the point of
recovery, Kalyan Singh son of Ram Ji Lal
was also present. He also gave one similar
underwear to the I.O.. A similar underwear
reassembling the same clothe as the stuck
one was also shown to the Investigating
Officer, who prepared a memo of the same
as Ext. Ka.5, the I.O. also prepared siteplan on the spot, which is Ext. Ka.6,
collected ashes of the burnt thatch in one
container, bone pieces were kept in another
container and the burnt portion of the
bullock-cart was kept in a gunny bag under
seal. A memo of all the above was prepared
on the spot, which memo is Ext. Ka.7.
Blood marks were found on the main door
of the house of Mangli. Some pieces of the
door were taken into possession and a
memo of the same was prepared on the
spot, which is Ext. Ka.13. Besides this,
statement of various prosecution witnesses
were also recorded. At the time, when he
reached at the house of Mangli, no family
member of Mangli was present over there.
Entry in that regard has been made in the
concerned Case Diary and copy of the same
is Ext. Ka.14. Mangli was arrested on
1.11.1981.
Recovery
of
'lathi'
was
effectuated from him, the very same day.
The 'lathi' was kept in four pieces and a
memo of the same was prepared as Ext.
Ka.15. Besides this, material exhibits were
also prepared. 'lathi' (Material Ext.1), ashes
(Material Ext.2), pieces of door (Material
Ext.3), burnt pieces of bones (Material
Ext.4), underwear (Material Ext.5) and the
piece of clothes stuck to the human flesh
(Material Ext.6). After completing the
investigation, the Investigating Officer filed
charge-sheet (Ext. Ka.16) against the
accused-appellant.

10. Consequent upon this, the trial
commenced and it was numbered as
Sessions Trial No. 176 of 1982 (State
versus Mangli & Others). The Sessions
Judge, Budaun, vide his order dated
6.5.1982 heard both the sides on point of
charge and found prima-facie ground
existing for framing charges under Sections
- 302/34 and 201 I.P.C. against the
accused-appellant. Charge was read over
and explained to the accused-appellant,
who denied the charges and opted for trial.

11. The prosecution produced in all
seven witnesses. P.W.1 Latoori is the
informant, who lodged an oral report at the
Police Station - Rajpura regarding the
incident. P.W.2 Dr. M.V. Juyal conducted
postmortem examination on four pieces of
burnt flesh of human being and it was
observed in the postmortem examination
report (Ext. Ka.2) that it was not possible to
know about any ante mortem injuries on
account of severe burn. Constable Kunwar
Pal Singh P.W.3 has prepared the Check
F.I.R. and made relevant G.D. Entry.
Constable
Rajpal
Singh
P.W.4
and
Constable Saran Singh P.W.5 have testified
about safe custody of the pieces of human
flesh and its safe conveyance to the
Mortuary, Budaun. Tilak Singh P.W.6 is
the eye witness of the occurrence and Hari
Maya Sharma P.W.7 is the Investigating
Officer.

12. The evidence for the prosecution
was closed and the statement of the
accused-appellant was
recorded under
Section - 313 Cr.P.C., wherein, appellant
denied
the
prosecution
version
and
submitted that he was on inimical terms
94 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
with his brother- Chaturi, who in collusion
with Latoori (the informant) has falsely
involved him in this case. He was asked to
adduce his defence, whereupon he initially
wished to give testimony, but he did not
adduce testimony.

13. After considering the merit of the
case, the Sessions Judge, Budaun returned
finding of conviction against the accusedappellant. Thus, sentencing him under the
aforesaid charges and sentenced him as
above, vide his judgment and order dated
31.1.1983.

14. Consequently, this appeal.

15. Sri Rajarshi Gupta, learned
Amicus Curiae for the appellant submits
that so far as the involvement of the
appellant is concerned, it can be seen from
the entire record that the appellant has not
played any particular role in this case and
the only point for his false implication is
that the relationship of the appellant with
his brother was not good, but in severely
battered position and his brother in
collusion with Latoori has got the appellant
involved in this case. Otherwise, there was
no motive whatsoever for the appellant to
indulge in committing in any such offence.
The other three co-accused Mangli and his
two sons (Rajendra and Toofan) might
have a cause of action against the deceased-
Aaram Singh, but a cooked up story was set
up that the appellant happens to be a
relative of co-accused- Mangli, which story
when specifically put to the appellant in the
statement under Section - 313 Cr.P.C. was
flatly denied and it was claimed that the
appellant is not related to Mangli. Learned
Amicus Curiae further added that there is
no corroboration of the incident from any
independent source. Both the witnesses are
partisan witnesses, relatives and highly
interested witnesses. Their testimony is
tutored and improved one and it varies
from each other, full of embellishments.
The case against the appellant- Pannoo is
highly different from that of the other coaccused. The accused- Pannoo has been
made a scapegoat, for no worthy reason.
Except, participation in the occurrence,
nothing more has emerged against the
appellant. The facts and circumstances also
foretell about false implication of the
appellant, because the motive assigned for
committing the offence on account of
landed property and the incident was
claimed to have been caused by the other
accused Mangli, Rajendra and Toofan, but
that motive had got no nexus with the case
of the present accused- appellant nor the
present accused-appellant had any such
motive as he neither is nor was any relative
of co-accused Mangli. Consequently, the
judgment of conviction is perverse and
illegal.

16. While retorting to the aforesaid
argument, learned A.G.A. has supported
the judgment of conviction and sentence
and claimed that the finding of conviction
is just and consistent and the same is based
on material on record.

17. We have also considered above
rival submissions.

18. The moot point that arises for our
consideration is primarily confined to fact
whether the prosecution has been able to
establish its case against the appellant
beyond reasonable doubt?

19. Bare perusal of the F.I.R.
indicates that it was orally lodged at Police
Station - Rajpura, District - Budaun on
29.10.1981 around 10:00 a.m. after the
occurrence took place at 8:00 a.m. at
10 All. Mangali & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
95
Village - Pavsara. The distance of the place
of the occurrence from the police station is
shown to be three kilometers. As per the
description contained in the F.I.R., the
informant-
Latoori
accompanied
his
nephew, Aaram Singh along with others,
Shyam Lal and Tilak Singh were going to
plough the field of Aaram Singh. Aaram
Singh was moving ten steps ahead of them
on his bullock-cart. It was around 8:00 a.m.
when they reached near field of Shyam Lal,
when Mangli and Pannoo possessing 'lathi',
Rajendra possessiong gun and Toofan
possessing spear all of a sudden appeared
from behind the bushes. Mangli, Toofan
and Pannoo gave assault with 'lathi' and
spear to Aaram Singh. Aaram Singh fell
unconscious by the assault. Alarm was
raised,
whereupon
Sardar
and
Ram
Swaroop arrived on the spot. The informant
tried to save the victim, but Rajendra
threatened at gun point. Thereafter, the
accused took the victim on his bullock-cart
to their home. The informant along with
several villagers reached at the house of the
accused (Mangli), whereupon he found the
thatch under flames and Rajendra was
threatening from the roof top that in case
anyone tried to intervene, he shall be
severely dealt with.

20. It is alleged that the accused threw
Aaram Singh with the bullock-cart in the
flames of the thatch and burnt him to death.
Thereafter, this report was lodged at 10:00
a.m., the very same day. This report Check
F.I.R. is Ext. Ka.1. There is nothing
adverse either in the testimony of the
prosecution witnesses or prevailing facts
and circumstances of this case, which may
indicate that the F.I.R. is ante timed
because the events allegedly took place
around 8:00 a.m., distance of three
kilometers was covered by the informant
himself and he orally lodged the report at
police station - Rajpura. Therefore, the
point raised to the extent that F.I.R. is ante
timed is not sustainable.

21. However, insofar as the incident is
concerned, obviously it has been disclosed
in the F.I.R. that accused are on inimical
terms with the informant on account of
enmity, due to litigation for the landed
property and because of that some
altercation also had taken place three days
prior to the occurrence. This is the strong
motive for committing the crime.

22. So far as all the accused are
concerned, then the three co-accused, say,
Mangli, Rajendra and Toofan are related to
each other as the father and the two sons.
Mangli is father of Rajendra and Toofan.
So far as the role of the appellant- Pannoo
is concerned, claim is that Pannoo has got
nothing to do with the offence in question,
for the specific reason that Pannoo has got
no connection with the aforesaid three
accused, Mangli, Rajendra and Toofan and
he is not connected with them in any
manner either friendship or he being
relative.

23. However, it has emerged in the
testimony of the prosecution witnesses of
fact that Pannoo is distant relative of
Mangli, but we upon consideration of the
entire record fail to come across any such
specific
relationship
having
been
established by the prosecution in relation to
the present appellant- Pannoo qua the other
co-accused. The appellant has given
statement under Section - 313 Cr.P.C., and
in reply to Question No.17, he has stated
that his brother- Chaturi has got himself
falsely implicated in this case because
enmity exists between the appellant and his
brother- Chaturi and this has been done by
the
Chaturi
by
colluding
with
the
96 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
informant- Latoori. Neither in the argument
extended by the learned counsel for the
State/prosecution nor from record anything
in the shape of confirmation to the fact of
the appellant being relative of the Mangli is
proved. This stray testimony that the
appellant- Pannoo is relative of Mangli
finds place in the examination-in-chief of
Latoori
(P.W.1).
However,
in
the
examination-in-chief, nothing particular
has been stated so as to specifying what
relationship the appellant had with the
accused. The fact of actual relationship
between the appellant Pannoo and coaccused- Mangli being a fact has not been
duly proved.

24. In view of denial of the appellant
that he has been falsely implicated on
account of enmity with his brother-
Chaturi, who colluded with informant-
Latoori, we as a measure of caution find it
appropriate to determine what purpose was
working there in between co-accused
Mangli, Rajendra Toofan on the one side
and the appellant-Pannoo on the other side
because unless and until Pannoo has got
any interest in the killing of Aaram Singh
either on ground of he being friend of the
aforesaid three co-accused or he being
relative of them, it becomes out of
comprehension that the appellant will
participate in such ghastly crime. On both
count, a vague statement finds place in the
examination-in-chief of Latoori (P.W.1)
that accused Pannoo is his relative. Except
that no other description.

25. Nothing specific appears on this
particular aspect and this testimony should be
treated to be vague and tutored one and it
gives vent to the claim of the appellant that
some collusion took place between the
informant- Latoori (P.W.1) and the brother of
the appellant- Chaturi and it has not been
proved reasonably that nexus between the coaccused Mangli and the appellant was in fact
based on any relationship. Otherwise for what
cause or reason, Pannoo, the appellant had
any cause for committing any offence of the
like nature. If the appellant was standing in
any relationship to Mangli, then particular
relationship ought to have been specified as
was required to be done so as to gather the
intention and objective in which Pannoo was
interested (in committing the offence).
Except, one vague sentence, there is nothing
in the entire examination-in-chief of Latoori
(P.W.1) that appellant is his relative.

26. Similarly in the testimony of Tilak
Singh (P.W.6), nothing positive has been said
about particular relationship between coaccused Mangli and his two sons-the two coaccused, Rajendra and Toofan and the
accused- Pannoo, which may indicate that
both Mangli along with his sons were related
to Pannoo. Once the relationship between
Pannoo and Mangli is not established, then
the argument advanced to the extent that for
what reason appellant-Pannoo would involve
himself in the commission of the offence
becomes worth consideration. Admittedly,
both the witnesses of fact are related to
deceased- Aaram Singh.

27. Thus, here in this case, relevancy of
the motive assumes wider dimension insofar
as the present appellant is concerned and in
that regard, the position of other co-accused,
vis-a-vis- the appellant becomes entirely
different. The reason is specific, if the
appellant is not a relative of Mangli, then
how can it be said that he has any cause
against the deceased and he would indulge in
such crime to settle any score with deceased-
Aaram Singh, as such.

28. We come across fact that whatever
dispute was there with deceased Aaram
10 All. Mangali & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
97
Singh was with Mangli. In the testimony of
Latoori (P.W.1), it has emerged in his cross
examination on Page No. 26 of the paper
book that two-three days prior to the incident,
there was some dispute between Aaram
Singh- the deceased and Mangli- the another
co-accused and the dispute had in its
background fact that both Aaram Singh and
Mangli were driving their respective bullockcarts
coming
from
opposite
direction
intercepted each other on the way and on
point of giving safe passage, altercation took
place between Mangli and Aaram Singh.
Therefore, Mangli and his two sons may be
interested persons, who had a cause against
Aaram Singh. But once it is not satisfactorily
that the present appellant is really relative of
Mangli, it would not be safe, in the absence
of such satisfaction, to impute any motive to
the present appellant to commit the crime.
Only a casual reference of relationship that
appellant is a distant relative of Mangli would
not be suffice to prove the fact of appellant
being relative.

29. So far as the testimony of
prosecution witnesses of fact against the
appellant is concerned, then the same
appears to be tutored one, full of
improvement and embellishments insofar
as it implicates and involves the appellant
along with the other three co-accused, who
had specific cause against the deceased.
Statement of the appellant-Pannoo under
Section - 313 Cr.P.C. is self speaking and
carries weight and cannot be brushed aside
under facts and circumstances of this
particular case.

30. No leading role that the appellant
took lead in the commission of the offence
has been attributed to the present appellant by
the prosecution nor is it reflected in the
testimony of the prosecution witnesses of fact
in particular Latoori (P.W.1) and Tilak Singh
(P.W.6). On this point, the lower court failed
to appreciate the evidence and has totally
misread the import and the meaning of the
statement of the appellant given in reply to
question made under Section - 313 Cr.P.C.
and for this specific reason, the finding of
conviction recorded against the appellant by
the trial court becomes perverse and illegal
on its face, which is not sustainable, for
simple reason that there was no worthy cause
for the appellant to commit crime along with
the other three co-accused.

31. We may record our satisfaction that
arguments extended on behalf of the present
appellant carry force and the same are
approved and sustained by us. Consequently
we hold in unambiguous terms that the
prosecution has not been able to prove its
case beyond reasonable doubt against the
surviving appellant, namely, Pannoo. Thus,
he is entitled to the benefit of doubt.

32. In the wake of above discussion, we
may sum up that the finding of conviction
and the sentenced awarded by the trial court
is on the face erroneous and perverse insofar
it relates to present appellant-Pannoo and the
same cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
Therefore, the judgment and order of
conviction and sentence dated 31.1.1983
passed by the Sessions Judge, Budaun, in
Sessions Trial No.176 of 1982, (State Vs.
Mangli and others), arising out of Case
Crime No.194 of 1981, under Sections
302/34 and 201 I.P.C., Police Station-
Rajpura, District- Budaun, is hereby set aside.
Accused-appellant no.4- Pannoo is acquitted
of all the charges as above.

33. Accordingly, the instant appeal
succeeds and the same is allowed.

34. In this case, the accused-appellant
no.4- Pannoo is in jail. He shall be released
98 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
forthwith unless and until he is wanted in
connection with any other case. The
appellant shall ensure compliance of
Section - 437A Cr.P.C.

35. Let a copy of this judgment/order
be certified to the court concerned for
necessary information and follow up
action.
----------
(2021)10ILR A98
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.08.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR OJHA, J.

Jail Appeal No. 377 of 2018

Sunil Prajapati ...Appellant
Versus
State ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellant:
From Jail, Sri Prashant Vyas, Sri Rajesh
Kumar Dubey

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

(A) Criminal Law - Appeal from jail -
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 326Ka,
324, 323, 353, 332 & 308 - The Code of
Criminal
Procedure,
1973
-
Section
161,313 - to establish an offence by an
accused motive is not required to be
proved when case is based on eye witness
account - prosecution case cannot be
doubted
on
the
ground
of
non
examination of independent witnesses.
(Para - 18,19)

Appellant came to the office of injured -
poured inflammable substance over his body,
beaten him by brick and iron rod several
times - injured sustained grievous injuries -
head was lacerated at several places -
Appellant
committed
marpit
with
other
employees of the office - acid injury in the
eyes and body of the injured - appellant
obstructed the government work. (Para - 3,
17)

HELD:-Appellant forcibly entered into the
office of complainant and beaten injured and
poured acid over his body without any reason,
the appellant committed marpit with other
employees of the office. It was a government
office where the alleged incident took place,
therefore,
the
appellant
also
created
obstruction in discharging the duties by the
government
employees.
Prosecution
has
established charges under Sections Section
326Ka, 324, 323, 353, 332 & 308 of I.P.C.,
against the appellant beyond reasonable
doubt.(Para - 22,23)

Jail appeal dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Thaman Kumar Vs St. of Union Territory of
Chandigarh, 2003 (3) SCR 1190

2. Saddik Vs St. of Guj., (2016) 10 SCC 663

3. Nagaraj Vs St. , (2015) 4 SCC 739

4. Sanaullah Khan Vs St. of Bihar, 2013 (81)
ACC 302 (SC)

5. Subal Ghorai Vs St. of W.B., (2013) 4 SCC
607

6. Deepak Verma Vs St. of H.P., 2012 (76) ACC
794(SC)

7. Sadhu Saran Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
(2016) 4 SCC 357

8. Mukesh Vs St. for NCT of Delhi & ors., AIR
2017 SC 2161

9. Bhagwan Jagannath Markad Vs St. of Mah.,
(2016) 10 SCC 537

10. Babu Ram Vs St. of U.P., 2002 (2) JIC 649
(SC)

11. Maqbool Vs St. of U.P. & anr., AIR 2018 SC
5101