# No. 850774845, Lalji Pandey v. Director General, C.R.P.F. and

- **Citation:** (2010) 1 ILRA 219
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2010-03-18
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 342 of 2010
- **Bench:** Vijay Manohar Sahai, Ritu Raj Awasthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/no-850774845-lalji-pandey-v-director-general-c-r-p-f-and-41557
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Sri S.K. Shukla
Sri Surendra Prasad
Sri Ashok Mishra
Sri A.K. Pandey
Sri N.K. Tripathi

(A) High Court Rule-1951-Chapter VIII,
Rule-5-Special
Appeal-against
the
judgment passed by Single Judge-arises
out from dismissal order-appellate and
Revisional Order against-order judgment
by Single Judge-whether affirmed by
Special
Appeal
competent?-held-'yes'
reasons discussed.

Held: Para 14 & 15

In view of above, the present special
appeal
is
maintainable
and
the
preliminary
objection
raised
by
the
respondent having no legal force is
hereby rejected.

Learned counsel for the appellant has
vehemently
urged
that
impugned
judgment and order of the learned Single
Judge is not sustainable in the eyes of
law as the same has been passed
without territorial jurisdiction. It is
submitted that the respondent while
posted
to
113
Battalion
C.R.P.F.
Hyderabad had absented himself without
leave
and,
therefore,
departmental
proceedings were conducted against him
for misconduct under section 11(1) of
C.R.P.F.
Act.
After
completion
of
disciplinary proceedings the punishment
order dated 17.04.1994 was passed by
which respondent was dismissed from
service. The respondent had availed the
opportunity of filing appeal and revision
before the higher authorities which were
rejected by orders dated 16.06.1996 and
26.10.1997.

(B) Constitution of India, Art. 226Tribunal
jurisdictionpetitioner/Respondent-member
of
C.R.P.F.-all
the
orders
dismissalappellate and revisional order passed by
the authorities outside of territorial limit
of State of U.P.-merely communication at
the residence of petitioner (Bhadohi)
Varanasi-shall not confer any jurisdiction
to
High
Court
Allahabad-impugned
judgment not suitable.

Held: Para 23

Mere communication of these orders at
the residential address of the respondent
at district Bhadohi would not confer
territorial jurisdiction to this Court. It
has been held by the Full Bench of this
Court in the case of Rajendra Kumar
Mishra (supra) that mere residence of
the
petitioner
within
the
territorial
jurisdiction of this Court would not
confer the jurisdiction to this Court to
entertain the writ petition in which the
order under challenge has been passed
out side the State of U.P. The writ
petition would be maintainable in the
territorial jurisdiction of the High Court
in
which
the
impugned
order
was
passed.
Case law discussed:
2010(1) ADJ-1 (FB), AIR 1981 Supreme Court
806, 2005(5) AWC 4542 (FB), 2008-UPLBEC-139.
220 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010

## Text

1 All] The Director General, C.R.P.F. and others V. Constable No.850774845 Lalji Pandey

219
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.03.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI, J.
THE HON'BLE RITU RAJ AWASTHI, J.

Special Appeal No. 342 of 2010

The Director General, C.R.P.F., C.G.O.
Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi and
others

...Appellants
Versus
Constable No. 850774845, Lalji Pandey

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Bhoopendra Nath Singh
Sri Udit Chandra
Sri Subodh Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri S.K. Shukla
Sri Surendra Prasad
Sri Ashok Mishra
Sri A.K. Pandey
Sri N.K. Tripathi

(A) High Court Rule-1951-Chapter VIII,
Rule-5-Special
Appeal-against
the
judgment passed by Single Judge-arises
out from dismissal order-appellate and
Revisional Order against-order judgment
by Single Judge-whether affirmed by
Special
Appeal
competent?-held-'yes'
reasons discussed.

Held: Para 14 & 15

In view of above, the present special
appeal
is
maintainable
and
the
preliminary
objection
raised
by
the
respondent having no legal force is
hereby rejected.

Learned counsel for the appellant has
vehemently
urged
that
impugned
judgment and order of the learned Single
Judge is not sustainable in the eyes of
law as the same has been passed
without territorial jurisdiction. It is
submitted that the respondent while
posted
to
113
Battalion
C.R.P.F.
Hyderabad had absented himself without
leave
and,
therefore,
departmental
proceedings were conducted against him
for misconduct under section 11(1) of
C.R.P.F.
Act.
After
completion
of
disciplinary proceedings the punishment
order dated 17.04.1994 was passed by
which respondent was dismissed from
service. The respondent had availed the
opportunity of filing appeal and revision
before the higher authorities which were
rejected by orders dated 16.06.1996 and
26.10.1997.

(B) Constitution of India, Art. 226Tribunal
jurisdictionpetitioner/Respondent-member
of
C.R.P.F.-all
the
orders
dismissalappellate and revisional order passed by
the authorities outside of territorial limit
of State of U.P.-merely communication at
the residence of petitioner (Bhadohi)
Varanasi-shall not confer any jurisdiction
to
High
Court
Allahabad-impugned
judgment not suitable.

Held: Para 23

Mere communication of these orders at
the residential address of the respondent
at district Bhadohi would not confer
territorial jurisdiction to this Court. It
has been held by the Full Bench of this
Court in the case of Rajendra Kumar
Mishra (supra) that mere residence of
the
petitioner
within
the
territorial
jurisdiction of this Court would not
confer the jurisdiction to this Court to
entertain the writ petition in which the
order under challenge has been passed
out side the State of U.P. The writ
petition would be maintainable in the
territorial jurisdiction of the High Court
in
which
the
impugned
order
was
passed.
Case law discussed:
2010(1) ADJ-1 (FB), AIR 1981 Supreme Court
806, 2005(5) AWC 4542 (FB), 2008-UPLBEC-139.
220 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Udit Chandra holding
brief of Sri Subhodh Kumar for the
appellant and Sri S. K. Shukla appearing
for the respondent.

2. This intra court appeal has been
filed challenging the judgment and order
dated 12.12.2002 passed in civil misc.
writ
petition
no.
42351
of
1997
(Constable No. 850774845, Lalji Pandey
vs. Director General, C.R.P.F. and others)
whereby the impugned punishment order
dated 17.03.1994 of dismissal from
service, on the charge of unauthorized
absence of duty was set aside and the
matter was remanded to the punishing
authority with a direction that the
respondent (petitioner) shall be awarded
lesser punishment having regard to the
nature and circumstances of the case and
in the light of the observations made in
the judgment expeditiously preferably
within one year from the date of the order.
The writ petition was filed by the
delinquent employee after exhausting the
departmental remedy of appeal as well as
the
revision
before
the
competent
authorities which were rejected.

3. A preliminary objection has been
raised by the counsel for the respondent
submitting that the present special appeal
is not maintainable in view of the law laid
down by the full bench of this Court in
the case of Sheet Gupta vs. State of U.P.
and others, 2010(1) ADJ-1 (FB), as the
writ petition was filed challenging the
punishment order dated 17.03.1994 of
dismissal from service, appellate order
dated 16.06.1996 rejecting the appeal
filed against the punishment order of
dismissal and the revisional order dated
26.10.1997 rejecting the said appeal by
the department.

4. It is contended that in the Full
Bench decision of this Court in the case of
Sheet Gupta (supra), it has been held that
special appeal will not lie against the
order passed by the Single Judge in
exercise of jurisdiction conferred by
Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of
India in respect to any order made in
exercise
of
appellate
or
revisional
jurisdiction under any such Act i.e. under
any Uttar Pradesh Act or Central Act.

5. The learned counsel for the
appellant has strongly disputed the
preliminary objection and has submitted
that special appeal is fully maintainable in
view of the fact that the respondent was
employed in the central reserve police
force established under the Central
Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 and the
service conditions of the respondent were
covered under the rules and regulations
framed therein.

6. The submission of the learned
counsel for the appellant is that this Force
falls within the category of "any other
armed force raised or maintained by the
dominion" as mentioned in Paragraph I of
List I of the 7th Schedule to the
Government of India Act, 1935 or/and as
mentioned in Entry-2, List-I of the 7th
Schedule to the Constitution of India and
as per section 3(1) of the C.R.P.F. Act
central reserve police force is part of the
armed forces of the Union, therefore, the
special appeal filed against the order of
learned Single Judge in respect to any
order passed or purported to be passed in
exercise of appellate or a revisional
jurisdiction under any central Act with
respect to any of the matters enumerated
1 All] The Director General, C.R.P.F. and others V. Constable No.850774845 Lalji Pandey

221
in the Union list in 7th Schedule of the
Constitution of India shall be fully
maintainable under Chapter VIII Rule-5
of the Allahabad High Court Rules.

7. In order to consider the
preliminary objection we first consider
the provision of special appeal as
provided under Chapter VIII Rule-5 of the
Allahabad High Court Rules, which is
quoted as under:

"Special Appeal- An appeal shall lie
to the Court from a judgment (not being
judgment passed in the exercise of
Appellate Jurisdiction in respect of a
decree or order made by a Court subject
to the Superintendence of the Court and
not being an order made in the exercise of
revisional jurisdiction or in the exercise
of its power of Superintendence or in the
exercise of criminal jurisdiction [or in the
exercise of jurisdiction conferred by
Article 226 or Article 227 of the
Constitution in respect of any judgment,
order or award (a) of a tribunal, Court or
statutory arbitrator made or purported to
be made in the exercise or purported
exercise of jurisdiction under any Uttar
Pradesh Act or under any Central Act,
with respect to any of the matters
enumerated in the State List or the
Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule
to the Constitution or (b) of the
Government or any Officer or authority,
made or purported to be made in the
exercise
or
purported
exercise
of
Appellate
or
Revisional
Jurisdiction
under any such Act] of one judge.]"

8. Meaning thereby an appeal shall
lie to the Court from a judgment not being
a judgment passed in the exercise of
Appellate Jurisdiction in respect of a
decree or order made by a Court subject
to the Superintendence of the Court and
not being as order made in the exercise of
revisional jurisdiction or in the exercise of
its power of Superintendence or in the
exercise of criminal jurisdiction or in the
exercise of jurisdiction conferred by
Article 226 or Article 227 of the
Constitution in respect of any judgment,
order or award

(a) of a tribunal, Court or statutory
arbitrator made or purported to be made
in the exercise or purported exercise of
jurisdiction
(b) of the Government or any Officer or
authority, made or purported to be made
in the exercise or purported exercise of
appellate or revisional jurisdiction.

9. Under any Uttar Pradesh Act or
under any Central Act, with respect to any
of the matters enumerated in the State List
or the Concurrent List in the Seventh
Schedule to the Constitution.

10. In the case of Sheet Gupta vs.
State of U.P. and others (Supra) the Full
Bench of this Court had the occasion to
consider the following question made by a
reference:

"Whether a special appeal under the
provisions of Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of the
Rules of the Court lies in a case where the
judgment has been given by a learned
Single Judge in a writ petition directed
against an order passed in an appeal
under
paragraph
28
of
the
U.P.
Scheduled
Commodities
Distribution
Order, 2004?"

11. The Full Bench had come to the
conclusion that such special appeal will
not lie in certain circumstances. The
relevant paragraph is quoted below:
222 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010

"Having
given
our
anxious
consideration to the various plea raised
by the learned counsel for the parties, we
find that from the perusal of Chapter VIII
Rule 5 of the Rules a special appeal shall
lie before this Court from the judgment
passed by one Judge of the Court.
However, such special appeal will not lie
in the following circumstances:

1. the judgment passed by one Judge in
the exercise of appellate jurisdiction, in
respect of a decree or order made by a
Court subject to the Superintendence of
the Court;
2. the order made by one Judge in the
exercise of revisional jurisdiction;
3. the order made by one judge in the
exercise of the power of Superintendence
of the High Court;
4. the order made by one Judge in the
exercise of criminal jurisdiction;
5. the order made by one Judge in the
exercise of jurisdiction conferred by
Article 226 or Article 227 of the
Constitution of India in respect of any
judgment, order or award by
(i) the tribunal,
(ii) Court or
(iii) statutory arbitrator

made or purported to be made in the
exercise
or
purported
exercise
of
jurisdiction under any Uttar Pradesh Act
or under any Central Act, with respect to
any of the matters enumerated in the State
List or the Concurrent List in the Seventh
Schedule to the Constitution of India;
6. the order made by one judge in
exercise of jurisdiction conferred by
Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India in respect of any judgment, order or
award of
(i) the Government or
(ii) any officer or
(iii) authority,

made or purported to be made in the
exercise
or
purported
exercise
of
appellate or revisional jurisdiction under
any such Act, i.e. under any Uttar
Pradesh Act or under any Central Act,
with respect to any of the matters
enumerated in the State List or the
Concurrent List in the the Seventh
Schedule to the Constitution of India."

12. From bare perusal of the above
decision it is very much clear that no
special appeal shall lie against the order
made by Single Judge in exercise of
jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or
227 of the Constitution of India in respect
of any judgment, order or award of the
government or any officer or any
authority made or purported to be made in
the exercise or purported exercise of
appellate or revisional jurisdiction under
any such Act i.e. under any Uttar Pradesh
Act or under any central Act, with respect
to any of the matters enumerated in the
State List or the Concurrent List in the 7th
Schedule to the Constitution of India.
Meaning thereby that in case the order
under challenge in writ jurisdiction before
the learned Single Judge was the order
passed by the Government or any officer
or any authority made or purported to be
made in the exercise or purported exercise
of appellate or revisional jurisdiction
under any such Central Act with respect
to any of the matters enumerated in the
Union List then the special appeal would
be maintainable.

13. It is relevant to notice here that
the Central Reserve Police Force Act,
1949 has been enacted in exercise of
powers
conferred
to
the
Central
Government under Paragraph 1 of List-I
1 All] The Director General, C.R.P.F. and others V. Constable No.850774845 Lalji Pandey

223
of 7th Schedule to the Government of
India Act, 1935, which is presently Entry2, List-I of the 7th Schedule of the
Constitution of India.

Entry 2 of List-I (Union List) of 7th
Schedule provides as under:

"Naval, military and air force; any
other armed forces of the Union".

In the case of Akhilesh Prasad vs.
Union Territory of Mizoram, AIR 1981
Supreme Court 806, it has been held that
any other armed force of the Union
includes the Central Reserve Police Force.
Therefore, it can easily be concluded that
the Central Reserve Police Force is
covered under "any other armed forces of
the Union as provided in Entry 2, List-I
(Union List) of the 7th Schedule of the
Constitution of India.

14. In view of above, the present
special appeal is maintainable and the
preliminary objection raised by the
respondent having no legal force is hereby
rejected.

15. Learned counsel for the
appellant has vehemently urged that
impugned judgment and order of the
learned Single Judge is not sustainable in
the eyes of law as the same has been
passed without territorial jurisdiction. It is
submitted that the respondent while
posted
to
113
Battalion
C.R.P.F.
Hyderabad had absented himself without
leave
and,
therefore,
departmental
proceedings were conducted against him
for misconduct under section 11(1) of
C.R.P.F.
Act.
After
completion
of
disciplinary proceedings the punishment
order dated 17.04.1994 was passed by
which respondent was dismissed from
service. The respondent had availed the
opportunity of filing appeal and revision
before the higher authorities which were
rejected by orders dated 16.06.1996 and
26.10.1997.

16. The learned counsel for the
appellant has urged that the entire
departmental proceedings as well as the
punishment order dated 17.04.1994, the
appellate order dated 16.06.1996 and the
revisional order dated 26.10.1997 were
passed out side the territorial jurisdiction
of this Court and, therefore, no part of
cause of action accrued to the respondentpetitioner in the State of U.P. in order to
avail the extra ordinary jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India of
this Court. In support of his submission
the learned counsel for the appellant has
relied on full Bench Decision of this
Court in the case of Rajendra Kumar
Mishra vs. Union of India and others,
2005(5) AWC 4542 (FB) and submits that
mere being permanent resident in the
State of U.P. the respondent does not get
any right to file the writ petition before
this Court as no part of cause of action
has
accrued
within
the
territorial
jurisdiction of this Court.

17. Learned counsel for the
respondent in reply to the aforesaid
submission submitted that writ petition
filed by the respondent was fully
maintainable in this Court in view of the
fact that the impugned orders were
communicated
to
him
at
Bhadohi
(Varanasi) at his residential address.
Moreover, the respondent is permanent
resident of district Bhadohi and, therefore,
this Court has the territorial jurisdiction to
decide the writ petition filed by the
respondent. In this regard he has pointed
out to the Court the order dated
224 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010

16.06.1996 by which the appeal preferred
by the respondent against the punishment
order was rejected by the Inspector
General, in which an endorsement has
been made that the copy of the rejection
order of the appeal is forwarded to G.C.,
C.R.P.F. Allahabad. Learned counsel for
the respondent on the basis of the said
documents submits that the impugned
order was sent to the office of the
C.R.P.F. at Allahabad for further action
and communication to the respondentpetitioner and, therefore, the part of cause
of action has accrued within the territorial
jurisdiction of this Court.

18. The learned counsel for the
respondent in support of his submission
has relied on the decision of this Court in
the case of Phool Singh Chauhan vs.
Chief of the Army Staff, 2008-UPLBEC1-39.

19. We have considered the various
submissions made by the learned counsel
for the parties.

20. The Full Bench of this Court in
the case of Rajendra Kumar Mishra
(supra) has held that the writ petition is
liable to be dismissed on the short ground
that Allahabad High Court does not have
jurisdiction in the case and only the
Calcutta High Court or Dehli High Court
had jurisdiction in this Case. In fact the
petitioner Rajendra Kumar Mishra while
serving in the army was posted at
Kancharapara at Calcutta was chargesheeted and Court Martial proceedings
were held by the Commanding Officer,
Light Regiment at Calcutta in which he
was found guilty of the charges and
awarded
certain
punishments.
The
petitioner being the permanent resident of
U.P. had filed the writ petition before the
Allahabad High Court challenging the
punishments. It was held that merely
because the petitioner is resident of
district Ballia (U.P.) the writ petition
challenging Court Martial proceeding and
sentence was not maintainable as no cause
of action had accrued within the territorial
jurisdiction of the Allahabad High Court.

21. In the case of Phool Singh
Chauhan (supra) this Court has held that
since
the
petitioner
had
sent
an
application to the Chief of the Army Staff
from district Kanpur for taking him back
in service which was rejected and
communicated to the petitioner by letter
dated 20.05.1986 at Kanpur (U.P.) the
petitioner had cause of action to challenge
the said decision of not taking him back in
service before this Court. Thus so far as
the prayer of the petitioner to quash the
order
dated
20.05.1986
refusing
reinstatement of the petitioner in service it
can be held that this Court has territorial
jurisdiction since the representation was
sent from Kanpur and refusing of the
same was also communicated at Kanpur.
The relevant paragraph is quoted below:

"12. In above view of the matter, it
cannot be held that any part of cause of
action
arose
within
the
territorial
jurisdiction of this Court to challenge the
punishment awarded by summary Court
material
dated
15th
March,
1980.
However, the submission much pressed
by Counsel for the petitioner is that since
the petitioner has sent an application to
the Chief of the Army Staff from District
Kanpur for taking him back in service,
which was rejected and communicated to
the petitioner vide letter dated 20th May,
1986 at Kanpur (U.P.), the petitioner had
cause of action to challenge the said
decision of not taking him back in
1 All] The Director General, C.R.P.F. and others V. Constable No.850774845 Lalji Pandey

225
service before this Court. In the counter
affidavit filed by the respondents the
allegations made in paragraphs 9 and 10
of the writ petition, i.e., representation of
the petitioner to the Chief of the Army
Staff for his reinstatement on 7th
October, 1985, rejection of the said
request and communication at Kanpur
vide letter dated 20th May, 1986 has not
been denied. Thus in so far as the prayer
of the petitioner to quash the order dated
20th May, 1986 refusing reinstatement
of the petitioner in service, it can be held
that this Court has territorial jurisdiction
since the representation was sent from
Kanpur and the refusal of the same was
also communicated at Kanpur. In
support of the petitioner's prayer to
quash the order dated 20th May, 1986
same submission is pressed by the
petitioner,
i.e.,
the
punishment
of
dismissal as well as imprisonment of six
months was not permissible within the
meaning of Army Act, 1950 and the said
punishment being without jurisdiction,
the
petitioner
was
entitled
to
be
reinstated."

22. We are of the considered opinion
that the decision of this Court in the case
of Phool Singh Chauhan vs. Chief of the
Army Staff (supra) is not much of
assistance to the respondent as the said
case has no application in the facts of the
present
case
because
Respondent/petitioner
has
only
challenged the punishment order of
dismissal and the orders rejecting his
appeal and revision, which have been
admittedly passed out side the territorial
jurisdiction of this Court.

23. Mere communication of these
orders at the residential address of the
respondent at district Bhadohi would not
confer territorial jurisdiction to this Court.
It has been held by the Full Bench of this
Court in the case of Rajendra Kumar
Mishra (supra) that mere residence of the
petitioner within the territorial jurisdiction
of this Court would not confer the
jurisdiction to this Court to entertain the
writ petition in which the order under
challenge has been passed out side the
State of U.P. The writ petition would be
maintainable in the territorial jurisdiction
of the High Court in which the impugned
order was passed.

24. In view of the above, we are of
the considered opinion that order under
challenge passed by the learned Single
Judge in writ petition no. 42351 of 1997
was passed without territorial jurisdiction
and hence it is liable to be set aside.

25. We have also given our
thoughtful consideration to the merit of
the case and gone through the records.
There is no finding of the learned Single
Judge
that
the
entire
proceedings
conducted by the appellants were in any
manner illegal or violative of principle of
natural justice or in violation of any rule
or regulations made in this behalf. The
respondent belong to a disciplined force
and he had absented himself from duty for
considerable period of long time without
permission and due intimation to the
department and without sending any
medical certificate and proper application
within time. He had not admitted himself
in any of the C.R.P.F. Hospitals and,
therefore, his plea that he had fallen ill
due to which he could not join his duty
raises doubts about his conduct. The
departmental authorities had considered
the various pleas raised by the respondent
in appeal and revision which were filed
against the punishment order and rejected.
226 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010

26. In view of above, we are of the
considered opinion that impugned order
dated 12.12.2003 passed in writ petition
no. 42351 of 1997 is liable to be set aside
and it is hereby set aside. In the result the
appeal is allowed. No order as to costs.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.03.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMAR SARAN, J.
THE HON'BLE SHYAM SHANKAR TIWARI, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 636 of 2010

Satendra Kumar
...Appellant (in Jail)
Versus
State of U.P.

...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Ram Singh
Sri A.C. Tiwari

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A.

Criminal
Appeal-Conviction
under
Section
302-life
imprisonment
in
addition of fine Rs.1000/-and further
sentenced one year R.1 with fine of
Rs.1000/-death
caused
firstly
by
strangulation than set on fire by the
appellant-incident took place in side the
house-presence of appellant not deniedeye witness turn hostile-even then entire
evidence can not be ignored-considering
gravity of case as well as circumstantial
evidence-not entitled for bail-rejected.

Held: Para 11 & 13

In the present case P.W.1 has supported
the prosecution case in his examination
in chief. His cross-examination was
deferred on the request of accused and
after about 40 days when he again
appeared in the witness box he turned
hostile by disowning his earlier stand.
Apparently it shows that either the
witness has been terrorized or he has
been won over by the accused under
some temptation. In the light of the
observations of the Apex Court the entire
evidence of P.W.1 cannot be rejected.
Rather it has to be scrutinized and
accepted to the extent it supports the
prosecution case and the medical report
also supports it.

It is true that there is no direct eye
account of the death of the deceased and
only the circumstances put forward by
the prosecution have to be scrutinized to
reach
any
conclusion.
From
the
circumstances of the case and the
evidence (oral and documentary) on
record it appears that the cause of death
of the deceased is especially within the
knowledge of the appellant and as per
the provisions contained u/s 106 of the
Indian Evidence Act the burden of
proving that fact is on the appellant.
Case law discussed:
(2009) 1 SCC(Crl) 272, (1976 1 SCC page 389,
(2001) 2 SCC page 205, 2006 Crl.L.J. Page
1121, (1999) 8 SCC page 679, (2006) 10 SCC
page 681.

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.S. Tiwari, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ram Singh learned
counsel for the appellant and learned
AGA for the State.

2. This criminal appeal has been
filed on behalf of appellant Satendra
Kumar against the judgment and order
passed
by
learned
Addl.
Sessions
Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST(PA) Act) in
Sessions Trial No. 1262 of 2007 in which
appellant has been convicted u/s 302 and
201 IPC and sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for life u/s 302
IPC, in addition to fine of Rs.1000/- and
in case of default of payment of fine
further
to
undergo
three
months
imprisonment. He has further been