# Munna @ Deevana & Anr v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2016) 3 ILRA 24
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-02-19
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 7959 of 2010
- **Bench:** Mrs. Ranjana Pandya
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/munna-deevana-anr-v-state-of-u-p-43523
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

evidence - Contradictions - Benefit of doubt - Acquittal.

Delay in FIR - Effect.
Delay in lodging the first information report in a rape case is not necessarily fatal and can be
explained on account of social stigma and family circumstances. However, such delay must be
satisfactorily explained and assessed in the light of overall evidence. In the present case, though delay
was explained, it did not cure inherent infirmities in the prosecution version. (Paras 10)
3 All. Munna @ Deevana & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
25

Non-naming of accused in FIR - Serious infirmity.
When the victim and her father admittedly knew the accused and the victim allegedly disclosed the
names of both accused immediately after the occurrence, non-mention of co-accused Mustaq in the
FIR constituted a serious infirmity striking at the root of the prosecution case and rendered
subsequent implication doubtful. (Paras 12, 15)

Sole testimony of prosecutrix - Rule of prudence.
Conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if it is wholly reliable and inspires
confidence. However, where the testimony suffers from material contradictions, improbabilities and
inconsistencies, particularly regarding identification, manner of occurrence and disclosure, it would be
unsafe to sustain conviction without corroboration. (Paras 13, 17, 18)

Absence of injuries - Evidentiary value.
Absence of injuries on the body of the prosecutrix is not by itself sufficient to disbelieve the
prosecution case; however, where the prosecutrix alleges forcible resistance and struggle, complete
absence of injuries assumes significance and weakens the prosecution story. (Paras 16, 19)

Improbable version and contradictions - Effect.
Contradictory statements of the informant regarding his presence, waking up, hearing alarm, and the
manner in which the prosecutrix was allegedly lifted from the house, coupled with unnatural conduct
and improbabilities, rendered the prosecution version unreliable. Material contradictions going to the
root of the case cannot be ignored as minor discrepancies. (Paras 17, 18)

Non-production of material evidence - Adverse inference.
Failure of the prosecution to produce seized clothes of the prosecutrix and forensic examination report
before the Court further weakened the prosecution case and entitled the accused to benefit of doubt.
(Para 19)

Held:(Paras 20-22) Benefit of doubt.-The prosecution having failed to prove the charge beyond
reasonable doubt, conviction under Section 376 IPC was unsustainable. The appeal was allowed,
judgment of conviction and sentence set aside, and the accused were acquitted.

Case Law discussed:

## Text

24 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
45. No doubt, the report of the Forensic Lab on record, shows that sperms and blood was found
on the panty of the victim. But I am reluctant to place any reliance on the Forensic Report because
firstly the clothes were handed over by the parents to the I.O after an inordinate delay and secondly
the oral evidence is not reliable and trustworthy.

46. Thus, this is a peculiar case, in which the parents due to their own enmity and whims have
created everything out of nothing.

47. Thus, on the basis what has been stated above, I find that the learned lower court has misled
itself in reaching to the conclusion that the accused-appellant is guilty for the offence charged. Thus,
the accused-appellant is entitled to be acquitted and the appeal is liable to be allowed. Hence the
impugned judgement of conviction and sentence dated 30.7.2010 passed by Additional Sessions
Judge, Court No. 1, Saharanpur in S.T. No. 398 of 2009 (State Vs. Tauseef) arising out of Case
Crime No. 128 of 2009, under Section 376 I.P.C., Police Station-Kotwali Dehat, Saharanpur,
DistrictSaharanpur, is hereby set aside.

48. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The appellant is in jail. He shall be released forthwith in
this case. The provisions of Section 437A Cr.P.C. shall be complied with.

49. Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial court concerned.
----------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.02.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. RANJANA PANDYA, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 7959 of 2010

Munna @ Deevana & Anr ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent
Counsel for the Appellants:
Dr. Arun Srivastava, I.M. Khan, P.K. Kashyap, Suved K. Sharma

Counsel for the Respondent:
Govt. Advocate, Mohd. Shabbir

Criminal Appeal - Rape - Delay in lodging FIR - Naming of accused - Sole testimony of
prosecutrix - Reliability - Absence of injuries - Recovery of clothes - Non-production of forensic
evidence - Contradictions - Benefit of doubt - Acquittal.

Delay in FIR - Effect.
Delay in lodging the first information report in a rape case is not necessarily fatal and can be
explained on account of social stigma and family circumstances. However, such delay must be
satisfactorily explained and assessed in the light of overall evidence. In the present case, though delay
was explained, it did not cure inherent infirmities in the prosecution version. (Paras 10)
3 All. Munna @ Deevana & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
25

Non-naming of accused in FIR - Serious infirmity.
When the victim and her father admittedly knew the accused and the victim allegedly disclosed the
names of both accused immediately after the occurrence, non-mention of co-accused Mustaq in the
FIR constituted a serious infirmity striking at the root of the prosecution case and rendered
subsequent implication doubtful. (Paras 12, 15)

Sole testimony of prosecutrix - Rule of prudence.
Conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if it is wholly reliable and inspires
confidence. However, where the testimony suffers from material contradictions, improbabilities and
inconsistencies, particularly regarding identification, manner of occurrence and disclosure, it would be
unsafe to sustain conviction without corroboration. (Paras 13, 17, 18)

Absence of injuries - Evidentiary value.
Absence of injuries on the body of the prosecutrix is not by itself sufficient to disbelieve the
prosecution case; however, where the prosecutrix alleges forcible resistance and struggle, complete
absence of injuries assumes significance and weakens the prosecution story. (Paras 16, 19)

Improbable version and contradictions - Effect.
Contradictory statements of the informant regarding his presence, waking up, hearing alarm, and the
manner in which the prosecutrix was allegedly lifted from the house, coupled with unnatural conduct
and improbabilities, rendered the prosecution version unreliable. Material contradictions going to the
root of the case cannot be ignored as minor discrepancies. (Paras 17, 18)

Non-production of material evidence - Adverse inference.
Failure of the prosecution to produce seized clothes of the prosecutrix and forensic examination report
before the Court further weakened the prosecution case and entitled the accused to benefit of doubt.
(Para 19)

Held:(Paras 20-22) Benefit of doubt.-The prosecution having failed to prove the charge beyond
reasonable doubt, conviction under Section 376 IPC was unsustainable. The appeal was allowed,
judgment of conviction and sentence set aside, and the accused were acquitted.

Case Law discussed:
1. Kaini Rajan v. State of Kerala, (2013) 9 SCC 113 - Explained concept of "consent" under Sections
375-376 IPC.(Paras 11)
2. Deelip Singh @ Dilip Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2005) 1 SCC 88 - Consent obtained under
misconception of fact.(Para 11)
3. Radho v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2007) 12 SCC 57 - Significance of injuries in rape cases
alleging resistance.(Para 19)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Ranjana Pandya, J.)

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the Judgment and order dated 27.11.2010 passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Bareily (State Vs. Munna Deevana and others) in
S.T. No. 215 of 2010 under Section 376 I.P.C. Thana Baradari, Bareily whereby the accused
appellants Munna Deevana and Mustaq were found guilty under Section 376 (2) I.P.C. and
sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and Rs.10,000/- fine each with default
stipulation.
26 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
2. The prosecution case in brief is that the father of the victim, namely, Nasim Khan
lodged a report on 12.6.2009 that he lives with his daughter aged 17 years. He has two small
children Mohd. Taliv and Mohd. Ujair, who lived with him. He is a widower. The prevailing
night at 2.30 a.m. in the night, the accused appellant Munna Deevana accompanied by
another boy entered the house of the informant and carried away his daughter. They took her
in a nearby field and both raped her. On hearing the shrieks of his daughter, he went out of
the house. He saw Munna Deevana and the other boy fleeing away. He could identify the
other boy if he saw him. His daughter wept and narrated the whole incident to him. He tried
to trace the culprits but he could not trace them. Hence, he lodged the report.

3. On the basis of this written report, Constable Clerk 976 G.R. Gautam (P.W.5) scribed
the chik report, which was proved as Ext.Ka-7 on the basis of which G.D. was also written
and proved as Ext.Ka-8. Investigation of the matter was entrusted to S.I. Raghunandan
Singh (P.W.4), who copied the chik report on 12.6.2009 in the case diary. He recorded the
statement of Constable clerk G.R. Gautam. The medical report of the victim was received
which was entered in the C.D. The statement of the victim was recorded by the witness. On
her pointing out, the spot was inspected and site plan was prepared and proved by this
witness as Ext.Ka-4. On 14.6.2009, accused Munna Deevana was arrested and his
statements was recorded. On 19.6.2009, the statement of the informant Naseem Khan was
recorded. Further the statement of Ubaig and Mohsin were recorded. In the presence of
witnesses Asad Khan and Bhura Khan at the residence of the informant, the clothes of the
victim were taken into custody by the witness and recovery memo was prepared, which was
proved as Ext. Ka-5. On 2.7.2009, the statement of Mustaq was recorded. On 19.7.2009, the
pathological and X-ray report of the victim was received, which was copied in the case
diary. On 5.8.2009, the statement of witness Ujair was recorded. The investigation ended
into a charge sheet which was proved by this witness as Ext. Ka-6.

4. The prosecution examined as many as five witnesses. P.W. 1 is the informant
Naseem Khan, who proved the written report as Ext. Ka1. P.W. 2 is the victim. P.W. 3 is Dr.
Sarika Singh, who examined the victim. She did not find any injury on the internal parts of
the victim. The hymen was torn at 3 O'clock position, which was slightly bleeding on touch.
The lower part of the hymen at 6 O'clock position and was of red colour. The vagina was
admitting one finger. Slides were prepared and sent for examination. This witness proved the
medical report as Ext. Ka-2 and the supplementary report as Ext. Ka-3. The statement of
P.W. 4 Raghu Nath Singh and P.W.5 Constable Clerk G.R. Gautam has already been
discussed by me.

5. After examining five witnesses, the prosecution closed its evidence. The statement of
the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which the accused appellants denied
the occurrence. The accused Mustaq has stated that the informant wanted to usurp his house,
hence, he has falsely implicated this accused. His parents were blind and since he was sent
to jail, his parents were ousted from the house. The informant is used to filing such reports.
The accused Munna Deevana, while denying the occurrence, has stated that the house of
Mustaq was usurped by the informant after turning out his blind parents. The house of this
3 All. Munna @ Deevana & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
27
accused appellant was also usurped his mother being alone. Hence, he has been falsely
implicated. The accused did not adduce any evidence in defence.

6. The learned lower court, after hearing counsel for the parties, passed the impugned
conviction and sentence. Feeling aggrieved, the accused have come up in appeal.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the trial court record.

8. Counsel for the appellants has submitted that the whole prosecution theory is
unreliable, undigestable and the conviction is bad in law as the prosecution has miserably
failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

9. Per contra learned A.G.A. has submitted that conviction is well founded and based
on credible evidence adduced by the prosecution, hence, the appeal deserves rejection.

10. Perusal of the Chik report Ext.Ka-7 reveals that the report was lodged on 12.6.2009
at 21.3.30 hours distance of the police station from the place of occurrence being 1 1/2 kms
whereas the occurrence is said to have been taken place in the intervening night on
11/12.6.2009 virtually on 12.6.2009 at 2.30 in the night. As far as the delay is concerned, in
the report, the applicant has stated that he was trying to trace the rapists with the aid of his
neighbours but they were not seen anywhere, hence, after that report was lodged. Delay in
lodging the F.I.R. in a rape case would not be very fatal because in cases of rape on an
unmarried girl, the reputation of the family, the facts that the girl has to be married are all
kept in mind before lodging the report at the police station. In this regard, Nasim Khan has
stated that he tried to trace the miscreants along with the neighbours but they could not be
traced. After that, they proceeded to the police station and lodged the report because initially
they went to the Kaka Tola Police Chowki, who directed him to go to police station Baradari
to lodge the report due to which the informant proceeded to the police station Baradari
where he lodged the report which was dictated to Naim Khan. As far as the delay is
concerned, the informant (P.W.1) and the victim were put to very lengthy and tough crossexamination in which explaining the delay he has said that he was perturbed, hence, there
was slight delay in lodging the F.I.R. The informant has also stated that initially, they went
to the police chowki. Sometime was taken at the police chowki. They were returned back
and they went again to the police station. The victim has stated that when she accompanied
her father went to the police Chowki, the police personnel asked them to come after some
time and asked them to lodge the report at the police station. After that report was lodged.
Thus, the delay in lodging the F.I.R. has been satisfactorily explained.

11. As far as the age of the victim is concerned as per the F.I.R., she was aged about 17
years. At the relevant time, consent for rape was 16 years. The word "consent" has been
interpreted by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kaini Rajan Vs. State of Kerala,
(2013) 9 SCC 113. Paras 26, 27 & 28 of this Judgment read as follows:-

26."Consent" is stated to be an act of reason coupled with deliberation. It denotes an
active will in the mind of a person to permit the doing of an act complained of
28 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
"consent", for the purpose of Section 375, requires voluntary participation not only
after the exercise of intelligence based on the knowledge of the significance and
moral quality of the act but after having fully exercised the choice between
resistance and assent. Whether there was consent or not, is to be ascertained only on
a careful study of all relevant circumstances. An inference as to consent can be
drawn if only based on evidence or probabilities of the case.

27. It has been further held that the consent is intended by Sections 375 and 376
I.P.C. should not be under a misconception of fact.

28. In the case of Deelip Singh alias Dilip Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, 2005 1 SCC
88, Hon'ble the Apex Court has held that:-

"In the matter of consent, the court has to see whether the person giving the consent
had gone it under fear of injury or misconception of fact and the court should also be
satisfied that the person doing the act, i.e, alleged offender is concious of the fact or
should have reason but think that but for the fear or misconception, the consent
would not have been given."

12. It is the admitted case of the prosecution that the victim was sleeping inside her house
along with the brothers and her father when she was picked up by the appellants, taken her
to fields and raped. Perusal of the F.I.R. makes it clear that only accused Munna Deevana
has been named in the F.I.R. and the name of the coaccused appellant Mustaq does not find
place in the F.I.R. When the informant Nasim Khan was examined before the court, he said
that when he went out of the house on hearing shrieks of her daughter, he saw accused
appellants Munna Deevana and Mustaq, who were catching her daughter. At that time, he
recognized Munna and Mustaq only by his face. When he reached the spot his daughter told
him that Mustaq and Munna had pressed her mouth and had picked her from house and
raped in the fields. When this witness immediately after the occurrence was told about the
name of Mustaq by the victim there was absolutely no reason not to name Mustaq in the
report. Even if he could not identify Mustaq by name as per his own version the name of
Mustaq was told to him by his daughter but not naming Mustaq in the F.I.R. makes the
F.I.R., which is the backbone of a criminal case, very weak. When this witness was asked
before the trial court as to since when he knew Munna Deevana and Mustaq, he stated that
he knew them for the last 3-4 years. He has specifically stated that he recognized the
accused persons in moon light and since the accused fled from near him, he recognized
them. The victim (P.W.2) has stated that the accused pressed her mouth, lifted her from her
house, took her to the fields and they raped her. When she shouted her father came followed
by her neighbours. They were seen by her father, hence, they fled away. She narrated the
incident to her father. The report was dictated to Naim Khan, who had read over the report
and it was signed by her father after that. Again a million dollar question arises as to why the
name of Mustaq did not find place in the F.I.R. which was lodged the next day at 21.30.
hours. specially when the victim had told the name of both the rapists to her father instantly.
3 All. Munna @ Deevana & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
29
13. As far as the incident is concerned, it is trite law that the conviction can be based on
the sole testimony of the prosecutrix provided her evidence is trustworthy and reliable and
worthy of credence. From the judicial decisions rendered by the Apex Court, the law as
regards the credibility of the testimony of prosecutrix may be summarized as follows:-

30. From the judicial decisions rendered by the Apex Court the law as regards the
credibility of the testimony of prosecutrix may be summarized thus:-

"(i) There is no rule of law that corroboration is essential before there can be a
conviction solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix. But as a matter of prudence,
the necessity of corroboration must be present to the mind of the Judge.

(ii)
There may be circumstances in a given case which might make it safe to
dispense with such a corroboration.

(iii)
On the other hand, there may be factors in acase tending to show that the
testimony of the prosecutrix suffers from infirmities in a manner so as to make it
either unsafe or impossible to base a finding of guilt to the same. Some of the salient
factors of this type may briefly be stated that:

(a)
circumstances showing on the part of prosecutrix an animus against the
accused;

(b)
where the question of want of consent is material, circumstances tending to
show consent e.g. absence of material showing an attempt at resistance, absence of
any marks of struggle;

(c)
attempt at improvement or exaggeration in the version as attempted by the
prosecutrix;

(d)
conduct on the part of the prosecutrix inconsistency with the credibility of the
version e.g. omission to make a disclosure at the earliest opportunity;

(e)
element of artificiality or unnatural-ness in the story as attempted by the
prosecutrix, and

(f)
absence of signs of rape in the findings of the medical examination or on
chemical analysis".

14. Accused appellant Mustaq has stated that he has been falsely implicated in the
matter and his involvement in the case is also doubtful because as far as he is concerned, the
evidence of the prosecution is shaky and the witnesses have been making improvements
now and again.
30 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
15. When P.W.1 Naseem was asked about this matter, he admitted that when he went to
lodge the report, the victim was present with him. He has further stated that he knows the
house of Mustaq and recognizes him by his face. He has further said that the victim only
told the name of Munna Deevana and said that she could recognize the other rapist by face.
Clarifying the whole issue, this witness has stated that he came to know the name of other
rapist as Mustaq three-four days after the occurrence. The evidence of star witness P.W.2
(the victim) is very important on this point, who has stated that she did not name both the
accused to her father. But, in the next breath, she has stated that she had told the name of
miscreants to her father. As far as the statement of the Investigating Officer SI Raghu
Nandan Singh (P.W.4) on this point is concerned, he has stated that although the name of
Mustaq was not mentioned in the F.I.R. but the victim and the witnesses named him in their
statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

16. I t is trite law that mere fact that no injuries were found on the body of the victim
cannot be a ground to hold that no rape was committed. Absence of injuries and delay in
lodging the First Information Report cannot be a ground to disbelieve the prosecution theory
if otherwise found reliable.

17. As far as the prosecution case is concerned, the victim was carried away from the
house by both the accused to the fields and was raped there. The father of the victim,
namely, P.W.1 Naseem has said that since he was sleeping, he was not aware how his girl
was lifted and he did not see how she was taken away but he narrated what was told to him
by his daughter. The victim (P.W.2) stated that while she was sleeping both the accused
came, pressed her mouth, took her to the fields of Ehsan Khan and raped her. In crossexamination, this witness has stated that when the accused came to lift her, she was sleeping.
The rapists had not muffled their faces. They pressed her mouth, picked her in the lap and
took her. Further she has stated that whole family was sleeping in the courtyard. There was
no door in her house. She was sleeping towards the door-side and her father was sleeping
towards the wall. Between the father and the daughter two sons were sleeping. The way in
which the family members are said to have been sleeping, does not appeal to common sense.
I fail to understand why the father instead of sleeping himself towards the opening without
doors would make his daughter sleep and would make her unsafe. It is obvious that if there
is young girl in the house, the father would sleep towards the door and make his young
daughter sleep towards the wall. The manner in which the victim is said to be lifted is that
Mustaq pressed her mouth, caught her from the front, and Munna Deevana caught her from
the legs and lifted her. The presence and involvement of Mustaq is doubtful. Inasmuch as
this witness has stated that she did not name both the accused to her father and the manner in
which the victim is said to have been lifted is not reliable.

18. As far as the occurrence as regards Munna Deevana is concerned, the statement of
the victim P.W.2 is important who has explained that although there were no source of light
on the place of occurrence but because both the appellants were so near to her, hence, she
recognized them. The victim has further stated that the appellants had not muffled their face.
She had not shown the place of occurrence either to her father or Investigating Officer.
Clarifying the position on the spot, she has specifically stated by the time her father and
3 All. Munna @ Deevana & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
31
neighbours came, the accused had fled away from the spot. It is not the case of the
prosecution that any of the said accused were armed with any weapon. Although sole
testimony of the prosecutrix is enough for conviction but the conduct of the victim
immediately after the occurrence can also be looked into. Inasmuch P.W.1 Naseem has
stated that he reached the spot on hearing shrieks of his daughter who raised alarm after she
was raped. I fail to understand that how the father could not get up when his daughter was
being lifted from inside the house and how he managed to hear shrieks of his daughter 60-65
paces away from the fields and why the accused after raping the girl kept waiting at the
place of occurrence to enable the witnesses to see them. Although P.W.1 Naseem had not
witnessed the occurrence but he has stated that they had pressed her mouth when they were
raping her. At many places, P.W. 1 Naseem the informant has contradicted himself. I am
aware that minor contradictions in one's statement would not render the statement untrue but
if the contradictions strike at the root of the case then matter would take a different shape.
Informant P.W.1 was confornted with the statement given to the Investigating Officer in
which he has stated to the Investigating Officer that he awoke from sleep when his daughter
returned home after the incident and in court, he has stated that he reached the spot on
hearing alarm of his daughter. The statement that he reached the spot on hearing alarm is
correct and his statement that he woke up after his daughter returned home after incident is
incorrect. He was confronted with his two statements. In one he had stated that on the date
of occurrence, he had slept at the Majar and on the other he had stated that, at the time of
occurrence, he was sleeping inside the house. This witness was fair to admit that his
statement that he slept at the Majar on the date of occurrence is incorrect. In fact he was
sleeping in the house.

19. As far as the recovery of the clothes of the victim is concerned, the recovery memo
is Ext.Ka-5. The Investigating Officer in this regard has stated that the clothes of the victim,
which were taken into possession, were not produced before the Court. However, he has
stated that he inspected the spot on the pointing out but the victim has denied the pointing
out of spot to the Investigating Officer. Although the Investigating Officer (P.W.4) S.I.
Raghu nandan Singh has stated that the clothes were sent to the Forensic Lab but neither the
report is on the record nor the clothes were produced before the Court. Thus, as I have said
earlier although injuries are not sine qua non for proving the allegations of rape but, in this
particular case, the victim has categorically stated that she was trying her level best to get
out of the clutches of the accused. She tried her level best to get herself released but they did
not free her. She has also stated that the accused forcibly raped her. Mustaq pressed her
mouth. If this would have been the real position, there would definitely have been some
signs of injuries. Specially on the forearms, wrists, face, breast thighs and back which are
indicative of struggle and would support the allegations of sexual assault as has been laid
down in (2007) 12 SCC 57 (Radho Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh).

20. In the result, the prosecution evidence is shaky, unreliable, unworthy of credence
and the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the applicants beyond all
reasonable doubt. Hence, the appeal is liable to be allowed.
32 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
21.Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the Judgment and order dated 27.11.2010
passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Bareily (State Vs. Munna Deevana
and others) in S.T. No. 215 of 2010 under Section 376 I.P.C. Thana Baradari, Bareily
whereby the accused have been convicted and sentenced, is hereby set aside.

22. The accused is in jail. He shall be released forthwith in this case. The provisions of
Section 437A Cr.P.C. Shall be complied with.

23. Let copy of the Judgment be certified to the court concerned.
----------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.03.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARVIND KUMAR TRIPATHI, J.
THE HON'BLE ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA, J.

Capital Cases No.- 1251 of 2015

Pappu @ Chandra Kumar ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Vinod Kumar Srivastava, Smt. Usha Srivastava.

Counsel for the Respondent:
Govt. Advocate, Abhishek Singh,Ajeet Singh.

And

Reference NO.01 OF 2015

Criminal Law -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 506 - Arms Act - Sections 25, 27 - Murder
of police officer on duty - Police team reached appellant's house for arrest - Appellant armed with
country-made pistol warned police not to arrest him - Fired at close range at Inspector-In-Charge
causing chest firearm injury resulting in instantaneous death - Appellant apprehended on spot while
attempting to reload - Recovery of pistol and cartridges proved - Non-recovery of brass head of
cartridge and absence of fingerprint report not fatal - Evidence of police witnesses consistent and
reliable - Defence plea of false implication rejected - Held, prosecution proved case beyond
reasonable doubt. (Paras 7, 10, 11, 13)

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 354(3) - Sentencing - Rarest of rare - Appellant already
a life-convict in another case; several criminal cases pending - Murder committed to prevent lawful
arrest - Attack on police officer in discharge of official duty constitutes grave aggravating
circumstance - No mitigating factor sufficient to commute sentence - No possibility of reformation -
Death sentence justified. (Paras 15,16, 23-25)