# Mohd. Aslam v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2023) 1 ILRA 810
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-01-13
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 530 of 2004
- **Bench:** Ramesh Sinha, Mrs. Saroj Yadav
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mohd-aslam-v-state-of-u-p-49685
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Criminal Law- Indian Evidence Act, 1872-
Section 3- Case is based on circumstantial
evidence, as there is not eye-witness of
the crime- The FIR of the crime was
lodged in pursuance of an order passed on
an
application
moved
under
Section
156(3) of Cr.P.C. by the brother of
deceased Khairunnisa-In order to prove
the
crime
based
on
circumstantial
evidence
all
the
circumstances
must
indicate that the author of the crime is the
accused and the accused alone and there
is no possibility of being committed the
crime by anybody else. The chain of the
circumstances should be complete and no
shadow of reasonable doubt must be
there- The prosecution has failed to prove
the circumstances leading towards the
conclusion
that
the
appellant/convict
killed all the four deceased persons by
administering poison in meat.

Settled
law
that
in
a
case
based
on
circumstantial evidence the prosecution has to
link all the circumstances in one chain that leads
to the unerringly to the guilt of the accused.
(Para 7,8,11,12)

Criminal Appeal allowed. (E-3)

Case Law/ Judgements relied upon:-

## Text

810 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of commission of an offence, triable under
this Act but in the impugned order the
District Magistrate, has not recorded his
satisfaction having reason to believe with
regard to the property attached that it was
acquired by respondent as a result of
commission of an offence triable under
Gangster Act.

11. Keeping in view the aforesaid
settled proposition of law, I am of the view
that the view taken by the court below was
a probable and logical view, which is based
on valid reasons and the law propounded in
this regard. The judgment of the court
below cannot be said to be illegal, illogical
and improbable and not based on material
on record or is based on erroneous views
and is against the settled position of law.
So, this Court is satisfied that there is
absolutely no hope of success in this appeal
and accordingly, no interference is called
for.

12. Leave to appeal is refused.

13. Application for leave to appeal is
rejected.

14. Accordingly, the appeal does not
survive, and in view of above, the appeal is
dismissed.

15. No order as to costs.

16. Copy of this judgment be sent to
the court below for its compliance.
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 810
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 13.01.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE MRS. SAROJ YADAV, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 530 of 2004

Mohd. Aslam ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Mr. R.B.S. Rathaur (Amicus Curiae)

Counsel for the Respondent:
Addl. Government Advocate

Criminal Law- Indian Evidence Act, 1872-
Section 3- Case is based on circumstantial
evidence, as there is not eye-witness of
the crime- The FIR of the crime was
lodged in pursuance of an order passed on
an
application
moved
under
Section
156(3) of Cr.P.C. by the brother of
deceased Khairunnisa-In order to prove
the
crime
based
on
circumstantial
evidence
all
the
circumstances
must
indicate that the author of the crime is the
accused and the accused alone and there
is no possibility of being committed the
crime by anybody else. The chain of the
circumstances should be complete and no
shadow of reasonable doubt must be
there- The prosecution has failed to prove
the circumstances leading towards the
conclusion
that
the
appellant/convict
killed all the four deceased persons by
administering poison in meat.

Settled
law
that
in
a
case
based
on
circumstantial evidence the prosecution has to
link all the circumstances in one chain that leads
to the unerringly to the guilt of the accused.
(Para 7,8,11,12)

Criminal Appeal allowed. (E-3)

Case Law/ Judgements relied upon:-

1. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs St. of Maha.,
AIR 1984 (SC) 1622.
1 All. Mohd. Aslam Vs. State of U.P.
811
2. Ramgopal Vs St. of Maha., AIR 1972 (SC)
656. (cited)

3. Shivaji Chintappa Patil Vs St. of Maha., (2021)
5 SCC 626
(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Saroj Yadav, J.)

(The judgment is pronounced in
terms of Chapter VII Sub-rule (2) of
Rule (1) of the Allahabad High Court
Rules, 1952 by Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,
J.)

1. This criminal appeal has been
preferred by the sole appellant/convict
Mohammad Aslam against the judgment
and order dated 30.01.2004 passed by
Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Fast Track Court No.5, District Hardoi in
Sessions Trial No.241 of 2002, Crime
No.318 of 2001 under Section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1861 (in short IPC),
Police Station Mallawan District Hardoi,
whereby the appellant has been held
guilty under Section 302 of I.P.C. and
sentenced with life imprisonment coupled
with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default
of payment of fine further imprisonment
of two years.

2. The facts in short necessary for
disposal of this appeal are as under:-

(i) A First Information Report
(in short F.I.R.) was registered on
22.12.2001 at Case Crime No. 318 of
2001, under Section 302 of I.P.C. at
Police Station Mallawan, District Hardoi
in pursuance of the order passed by the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hardoi
on
the
application
moved
by
the
complainant Abdul Sattar under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C.. It was stated in the
application/F.I.R. that Khairunnisa sister
of the complainant was married to
Mohammad Salis resident of village
Purvayan,
Police
Station
Mallawan,
District Hardoi. Mohammad Aslam is the
real
brother
of
his
brother-in-law
Mohammad Salis. There was dispute
regarding money between his brother-inlaw and Salis Mohammad Aslam, because
Mohammad Salis lended a sum of
Rs.25,000/- to Mohammad Aslam during
the season of potato crop. Mohammad
Aslam was not returning the money
alleging loss. Whenever he (complainant)
used to ask about his own Rs.10,000/-
from Mohammad Salis, then Mohammad
Salis used to reply that whenever
Mohammad Aslam would return the
money he would pay him (complainant).
Mohammad Salis told the complainant
that whenever he asked about the money,
Mohammad Aslam made excuses and
threatened to kill.

(ii) On 13.01.2001 in the noon
Mohd. Aslam brought Buffalo meat and
gave to Khairunnisa the sister of the
complainant to cook. After handing over
the meat he went out of the house on
pretext of some urgent work. After eating
that meat Mohammad Salis brother-in-law
of complainant, sister Khairunnisa, nephew
Ajmeri and niece Gulshan died. Ajmeri and
Gulshan died on way to Mallawan, whereas
Mohd. Salis and Khairunnisa died in
Hardoi. He (complainant) met his sister and
brother-in-law in Mallawan because at that
time he was in Mallalawan. It was told by
his
sister
and
brother-in-law
that
Mohammad Aslam mixed poison in the
meat for the reason he did not want to
return the money. Before this incident
Mohammad Aslam left his wife in her
paternal home. He informed about the
incident at police station Mallawan but no
action was taken. He further informed
many higher officers, but no action was
taken. Therefore he moved an application
812 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
under section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C and
requested to lodge the FIR.

(iii) It is evident from the record
that on 13.01.2001 the police of Police
Station Mallawan District Hardoi prepared
inquest reports of all the four deceased
persons on the information received from
District Hospital Hardoi. The name of the
persons who gave information is Krishna
Kumar the ward boy of District Hospital
Hardoi. This fact has been mentioned in the
inquest report of all the four persons. After
preparing
the
inquest
reports
police
prepared the necessary documents and sent
the
dead
bodies
for
postmortem
examination. The police also reached at the
spot and seized some part of the meat
found inside the house of the deceased
persons and prepared the recovery memo of
the same.

(iv) After registration of the FIR,
further
investigation
started
and
the
Investigating Officer prepared the site plan
of the place of incident and recorded the
statements of the witnesses and submitted
the
chargesheet
against
the
accused
appellant under section 302 of I.P.C. for
killing the aforementioned four deceased
persons. The concerned Magistrate after
taking cognizance on the chargesheet
committed the case to the Court of Sessions
for trial, who in turn transferred the case for
trial to the Additional Sessions Judge for
trial. The Additional Sessions Judge framed
charge under section 302 of I.P.C.

The accused person denied the
crime and claimed to be tried. The
prosecution in order to prove its case
examined the following witnesses:-

(a) P.W. 1 Abdul Sattar, the
complainant.

(b) P.W. 2 Nafiz Ahmad.

(c) P.W. 3 Doctor C.P. Rawat,
who
conducted
the
postmortem
examination.

(d) P.W. 4 Raees Ahmad.

(e) P.W. 5 Sirajuddin.

(f) P.W. 6 Sub Inspector Santosh
Kumar Dixit.

(g) P.W. 7 Sub Inspector S.N.
Singh.

(h) P.W. 8 Sub Inspector C.S
Saxena.

(i) P.W. 9 Sub Inspector S.K.
Dixit.

(v)
Apart
from
above
oral
evidences, prosecution also proved the
relevant documents as Exhibit Ka-1 to Ka34, which are as under :-

(1) Exhibit Ka-1, photo copy of
the application under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C.

(2) Exhibit Ka-2, postmortem
examination report of deceased Salis.

(3) Exhibit Ka-3 post-mortem
examination
report
of
deceased
Khairunnisa.

(4) Exhibit Ka-4 postmortem
examination report of deceased Gulshan.

(5) Exhibit Ka-5 postmortem
examination report of deceased Ajmeri.

(6) Exhibit Ka-6 inquest report of
deceased Salis.

(7) Exhibit Ka-7 inquest report of
deceased Khairunnisa.

(8) Exhibit Ka-8 inquest report of
deceased Gulshan.

(9) Exhibit Ka-9 inquest report of
deceased Azmeri.

(10) Exhibit Ka-10 letter to R.I.
for postmortem of deceased Salis.

(11) Exhibit Ka-11 letter to the
Chief Medical Officer for conducting
postmortem of deceased Salis.

(12) Exhibit Ka-12 Chalan nash
of deceased Salis.

(13) Exhibit Ka-13 Photo nash of
deceased Salis.

(14) Exhibit Ka-14 specimen seal
of deceased Salis.
1 All. Mohd. Aslam Vs. State of U.P.
813

(15) Exhibit Ka-15 Photo nash of
deceased Khairunnisa.

(16) Exhibit Ka-16 chalan nash
of deceased Khairunnisa.

(17) Exhibit Ka-17 letter to R.I.
about deceased Khairunnisa.

(18) Exhibit Ka-18 letter to the
Chief Medical Officer for conducting
postmortem of deceased Khairunnisa.

(19) Exhibit Ka-19 specimen
seal of deceased Khairunnisa.

(20) Exhibit Ka-20 letter to the
Chief Medical Officer for conducting
postmortem of deceased Gulshan.

(21) Exhibit Ka-21 letter to R.I.
for postmortem of deceased Gulshan.

(22) Exhibit Ka-22 chalan nash
of deceased Gulshan.

(23) Exhibit Ka-23 photo nash of
deceased Gulshan.

(24) Exhibit Ka-24 specimen
seal of deceased Gulshan.

(25) Exhibit Ka-25 chalan nash
of deceased Ajmeri.

(26) Exhibit Ka-26 photo nash of
deceased Ajmeri.

(27) Exhibit Ka-27 letter to R.I.
for postmortem examination of Ajmeri.

(28) Exhibit Ka-28 letter to the
Chief Medical Officer for conducting
postmortem report of deceased Ajmeri.

(29) Exhibit Ka-29 specimen
seal of deceased Ajmeri.

(30) Exhibit Ka-30 site plan of
the place of incident.

(31) Exhibit Ka-31 recovery
memo of taking into custody the meat
from the house of the deceased persons.

(32) Exhibit Ka-32 Chargesheet.

(33) Exhibit Ka-33 Chick FIR.

(34) Exhibit Ka-34 Nakal Report
No.2
of
time
14:10
hours
dated
22.12.2001.

(36)
Exhibit
Ka-36
Viscera
examination report of deceased Salis.

(37)
Exhibit
Ka-37
Viscera
examination
report
of
the
deceased
Khairunnisa.

(vi) After close of prosecution
evidence, the statement of the accused
Mohammad Aslam was recorded under
section 313 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure 1973 (in short Cr.P.C.). The
accused denied all the allegations leveled
against him and stated that Abdul Sattar,
the complainant came to him to demand the
money and threatened that if money will
not be given he will lodge the FIR. He
lodged the FIR for the reason that he did
not pay the money demanded. In defence
one witness DW-1 Mohammad Anis was
examined. Thereafter the learned trial court
after hearing the arguments of both the
sides and analyzing the evidences available
on record reached at the conclusion that
prosecution
has
proved
all
the
circumstances
which
leads
to
the
conclusion that accused Aslam committed
the crime. It has also concluded that all the
circumstances cumulatively prove that
accused has committed the crime and
finally concluded that prosecution has
established the prosecution story beyond all
reasonable doubts by the evidence adduced
especially the medical evidence and expert
evidence. The learned trial court held the
accused guilty under section 302 of I.P.C.
and sentenced him with imprisonment for
life coupled with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and
in default of payment of fine further
imprisonment of two years.

(vii) Being aggrieved of this
conviction and sentence this appeal has
been preferred by the convict/appellant.

(viii) The appellant/convict had
challenged the impugned judgment and
order mainly on the ground that the
occurrence took place on 13.09.2001, but
the FIR was lodged on 20.12.2001 at about
14:10 hours, on the application of Abdul
814 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Sattar, who is the real
brother of
Khairunnisa. None of the close relatives of
deceased Mohammad Salis or a person
living nearby had lodged the FIR. Abdul
Sattar, the complainant has cooked up a
story that Mohammad Salis has given
Rs.25,000/- to the appellant for potato
business in which he has also given
Rs.10,000/- who is brother in law of
Mohammad Salis and the same was
demanded by him but the appellant has not
given the same. Among the prosecution
witnesses Sirajuddin and Nafis Ahmed had
turned hostile and only Abdul Sattar has
stated about the incident and that too in
contradictory manner which is not reliable.
The finding of the learned trial court is
against the law and facts both and the
impugned judgment and order of the trial
court is based on surmises and conjectures.

(3) Heard Mr R.B.S. Rathour,
Advocate
Amicus
Curiae
for
the
convict/appellant and Mr. Umesh Chandra
Verma, learned Additional Government
Advocate (in short A.G.A.) for the State.

(4)

Learned
counsel
for
the
convict/appellant argued that this case is
based on circumstantial evidence, as there
is no eye-witness of the incident. There was
no chance to state about the incident by
Khairunnisa and Mohammad Salis to Abdul
Sattar, as Abdul Sattar reached when all the
four persons were dead. P.W.-4 Raees
Ahmad and PW-5 Sirajuddin have turned
hostile. PW-1 Abdul Sattar, the complainant
has given a contradictory statement and is
not trustworthy. He further argued that
prosecution has failed to prove the chain of
circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable
doubt. In fact there is no evidence against
the
convict
appellant
therefore
the
impugned judgment and order should be
set-aside and the convict/appellant be
released. He relied upon following case
laws:-

(1) Sharad Birdhichand Sarda
Vs. State of of Maharashtra AIR 1984
(SC) 1622.

(2.) Ramgopal Vs. State of
Maharashtra, AIR 1972 (SC) 656.

(5) Contrary to it learned A.G.A.
opposed the submissions made by learned
Amicus Curiae and submitted that the
strong motive was there to commit the
crime and the poison was found in the meat
tested in the Forensic Science Lab and also
in the Viscera preserved of the diseased
persons.
Hence
the
appeal
deserves
dismissal and should be dismissed.

(6) Considered the arguments of both
the sides, perused the evidence available on
record and also the impugned judgment and
order, and gone through the case law cited
by the learned Amicus Curiae.

(7)

This
case
is
based
on
circumstantial evidence, as there is not eyewitness of the crime. The principle
governing the appreciation of evidence
based on circumstantial evidence have been
summarized by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of
of Maharashtra (supra) cited by the
learned Amicus Curiae and have been
reiterated in catena of cases by the Hon'ble
Apex Court. Recently the Hon'ble Apex
Court in this regard in the case of Shivaji
Chintappa Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra
reported in (2021) 5 SCC 626, has laid
down as under ( para 12 ):-

"12. The law with regard to
conviction on the basis of circumstantial
evidence has been very well crystalised in
the judgment of this Court in Sharad
1 All. Mohd. Aslam Vs. State of U.P.
815
Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra
:-(SCC p.185, paras 153-54)

"153. A close analysis of this
decision would show that the following
conditions must be fulfilled before a case
against an accused can be said to be fully
established:

(1) the circumstances from which
the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn
should be fully established.

It may be noted here that this
Court indicated that the circumstances
concerned "must or should" and not "may
be" established. There is not only a
grammatical
but
a
legal
distinction
between "may be proved" and "must be or
should be proved" as was held by this
Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State
of Maharashtra where the observations
were made: [SCC p. 807 : para 19, SCC
(Cri) p. 1047]

"19. .....Certainly, it is a primary
principle that the accused must be and not
merely may be guilty before a court can
convict and the mental distance between
"may be" and "must be" is long and divides
vague conjectures from sure conclusions."

(2) the facts so established
should be consistent only with the
hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that
is to say, they should not be explainable on
any other hypothesis except that the
accused is guilty,

(3) the circumstances should be
of a conclusive nature and tendency,

4) they should exclude every
possible hypothesis except the one to be
proved, and

(5) there must be a chain of
evidence so complete as not to leave any
reasonable ground for the conclusion
consistent with the innocence of the
accused and must show that in all human
probability the act must have been done by
the accused.

154. These five golden principles,
if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel
of the proof of a case based on
circumstantial evidence."

(8) In short in order to prove the
crime based on circumstantial evidence all
the circumstances must indicate that the
author of the crime is the accused and the
accused alone and there is no possibility of
being committed the crime by anybody
else. The chain of the circumstances should
be complete and no shadow of reasonable
doubt must be there. In the present matter
admittedly there is no eye witness of the
crime as nobody has come to say that he
saw the accused committing the crime. The
FIR of the crime was lodged in pursuance
of an order passed on an application moved
under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. by the
brother of deceased Khairunnisa. It is also
undisputed that the death of all the four
deceased persons resulted due to poison
Thayodon
(Organochloro)
insecticide
poison as found in the viscera preserved of
Salis and (Fairoom) Khairunnisa. The
viscera reports of Salis as Exhibit Ka-36
and Exhibit Ka-37 are on record.

In order to prove the murder by
poisoning the prosecution had to establish
the following three essentials:-

(a) The person died due to
poison.

(b)
The
accused
was
in
possession of poison.

(c) The accused had opportunity
to administer poison to the deceased.

(9) In the case in hand, it is
undisputed that all the four deceased
persons died of poison as has been reported
by the Forensic Science Laboratory in
viscera examination reports, hence first
ingredient is proved. Now comes the
second ingredient, whether Mohd. Aslam
816 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the appellant/convict had poison in his
possession. In this regard there is no
reliable evidence on record. The P.W.1 has
only stated that when he met Mohd. Aslam
in the bus he was carrying meat and a bottle
of medicine. When he asked Mohd. Aslam
about bottle he answered that it was a
Cough Syrup. No other evidence is there to
show that Mohd. Aslam had poison in his
possession. There is no evidence on record
that bottle which Mohd. Aslam carried on
the pretext of cough syrup was containing
poison. Even there is no evidence to prove
that Mohd. Aslam handed over the meat
pieces to Khairunnisa the deceased and
mixed that cough syrup in that meat.
Hence, the second ingredient is not proved
by the prosecution. Now comes the third
ingredients, whether Mohd. Aslam had
opportunity to administer poison to the
deceased person. There is allegation in the
FIR lodged by Abdul Sattar brother of the
deceased lady Khairunnisa and brother-inlaw of deceased Mohd. Salis and maternal
uncle of two deceased children, that Mohd.
Aslam brought meat and gave the same to
Khairunnisa to cook that and when the
meat was being cooked he mixed some
poison in that meat and after consuming
that meat all the four persons died.
Admittedly the complainant Abdul Sattar
was not present at the time of alleged
bringing of meat and mixing the poison or
handing over the meat to the deceased lady.
None other witness could be produced who
saw the accused, handing over the meat to
the deceased lady or mixing the poison or
atleast saying that he saw the poison in the
possession of the convict-Aslam.

(10) Prosecution has emphasized on
the statement of Abdul Sattar (P.W.1
Complainant), wherein he has stated that
his deceased sister and brother-in-law told
him before death, while Adbul Sattar was
taking them to Hospital in Hardoi that
Mohd. Aslam brought meat and gave it to
her deceased sister to cook up alongwith
spices. While meat was being cooked,
Mohd. Aslam poured some poison in the
pot and that was witnessed by his deceased
sister. Upon scrutiny of evidence of Abdul
Sattar it is surfaced that he received
information about the serious condition of
his sister, brother-in-law and their two
children. On this he went to Mallawan, but
the doctors at Mallawan asked to take them
to Hospital at Hardoi. When he was
carrying them to Hardoi, on the way his
sister told him that Mohd. Aslam gave meat
alongwith spices to cook and poured some
poison in the meat while meat was being
cooked. In this regard this witness has
given the contradictory statement. At one
place he said that his sister and brother-inlaw had already died when he reached, at
another place he stated that they were alive.
Further he said that his brother-in-law was
dead but sister was alive. Further more
Defence Witness (D.W.1) Mohd. Anis has
said that Abdul Sattar was not with him
when he carried the deceased persons to
Hardoi. Thus the testimony of P.W. 1
Abadul Sattar is not trustworthy. There is
nothing on record to establish that the
convict
Mohd.
Aslam
brought
meat
alongwith spices and handed over to
Khairunnisa for cooking and mixed some
poison when the meat was being cooked.

(11) Thus the prosecution has failed to
prove the circumstances leading towards
the conclusion that the appellant/convict
killed all the four deceased persons by
administering poison in meat. There is no
reliable evidence to establish that Mohd.
Aslam brought meat and spices and handed
over to the deceased lady to cook. There is
no reliable evidence that Mohd. Aslam had
poison in his possession and there is no
1 All. Ram Sanehi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
817
trustworthy and cogent evidence to prove
that Mohd. Aslam mixed some poison in
the meat while the meat was being cooked.

(12) The evidence on record is not of
such a quality that we can unhesitatingly
hold that the death of deceased persons
were result of administration of poison by
the convict/appellant. In other words the
prosecution has failed to prove that Mohd.
Aslam brought meat alongwith spices and
handed over to Khairunnisa to cook and
mixed the poison in the meat at the time of
cooking.

(13) It is painful for this Court to note
that four persons of the family were done to
death by poisoning but the real culprit of
the crime could not be brought to book. So
far as the appellant-accused Mohd. Aslam
is concerned the prosecution has failed to
conclusively establish by cogent evidence
that it was the accused/appellant who
committed the murder of four deceased.

(14) Hence the impugned judgment
and order deserves to be set-aside and is
set-aside.

(15) The appeal is allowed. The
appellant is in jail. He shall be released
forthwith, if not required in any other case.

(16) Appellant Mohd. Aslam is
directed to file personal bond and two
sureties each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the court concerned in
compliance with Section 437-A of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

(17) Before we part with the case, we
must candidly express our unreserved and
uninhibited appreciation for the assistance
rendered by Mr. R.B.S.Rathaur, Amicus
Curiae for the convict-appellant, therefore,
we deem it appropriate to direct for
payment to Mr.R.B.S.Rathaur, learned
Amicus Curiae for his valuable assistance
as per Rules of the Court.

(18)
Office
is
directed
to
pay
remuneration to Mr.R.B.S.Rathaur, learned
Amicus Curiae as per Rules of the Court
within a month.

(19) Let a copy of this order
alongwith original record be transmitted to
the trial court concerned forthwith for
necessary information and follow action.
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 817
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 25.01.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE MRS. RENU AGARWAL, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 551 of 1982

Ram Sanehi & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
R.K. Singh, Anurag Kumar Singh, Brij
Mohan Sahai, Sunil Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondent:
Govt. Advocate

Criminal Law- Indian Evidence Act, 1972-
Section 3 - Interested Witness- P.W.-2 is
the real brother of deceased, he admitted
in his statement that his brother Prakash
was tried for the murder of Chote, who is
the real brother of Ram Sahai, he also
stated that he was prosecuted for the
murder of the brother of accused Ram
Sahai, therefore, he may be partisan