# Pawan Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. Opp. Party

- **Citation:** (2022) 9 ILRA 1281
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-08-31
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Bail Appl. No. 47278 of 2021
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pawan-kumar-verma-v-state-of-u-p-opp-party-49053
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Law
-
Code
Of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) - Section
439 - Bail - Both the accused and the
informant were claiming ownership of
an immovable property, regarding which
there was a civil litigation pending
between the parties - Although several
photographs taken from the C.C.T.V.
footage
was
annexed
with
counter
affidavit, but there was no photograph
from which it can be inferred that the
applicant assaulted the injured persons -
present case arose out of a sudden
quarrel and scuffle - applicant assaulted
the injured persons with a saw and
screw driver, which are not regular
weapons of assault - it indicates that the
applicant did not have any intention to
cause the incident - all the injuries
suffered by the injured persons were
simple in nature, except two injuries -
Accused/applicant
&
his
son
also
suffered injuries in the incident, but
none
of
the
prosecution
witnesses
mentioned
these
injuries
in
their
statements to the police, which primafacie indicates that they are not truthful
witnesses and are not reliable - On
affidavit under taking was given that in
case the applicant is granted bail, he will
not abscond and he will abide by all the
conditions imposed on him by the Court
-
State
or
the
informant
did
not
presented any facts or circumstances
that
would
suggest
that
the
accused/applicant would abscond or not
appear for trial if released on bail -
Given these factors, the court granted
bail to the accused.

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

9 All. Pawan Kumar Verma Vs. State of U.P.
1281
exercising the powers of this Court under
Section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure
to
cancel
the
order
dated
21.10.2020 and I direct that the accused
respondents, who had been released on bail by
means of the order dated 21.10.2020 passed by
the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 01,
Mathura in Bail Application No. 2832 of 2020
be arrested and committed to custody.

17. The learned counsel for the applicant
states that the accused respondents no. 6 and 7
have already been arrested in connection with
Case Crime No. 1054 of 2021.

18. The other accused ? respondents no.
2 to 5 are directed to surrender before the
Court concerned within a period of three
weeks from today failing which the court
below shall take steps to ensure the
compliance of the orders.
----------
(2022) 9 ILRA 1281
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.08.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Crl. Misc. Bail Appl. No. 47278 of 2021

Pawan Kumar Verma ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opp. Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri
Shishir
Tandon,
Sri
Gopal
Swaroop
Chaturvedi(Sr. Adv.)

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Sri Krishna Mohan Garg, Sri Rajesh Gupta,
Sri Rajeev Sawhney

Criminal
Law
-
Code
Of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) - Section
439 - Bail - Both the accused and the
informant were claiming ownership of
an immovable property, regarding which
there was a civil litigation pending
between the parties - Although several
photographs taken from the C.C.T.V.
footage
was
annexed
with
counter
affidavit, but there was no photograph
from which it can be inferred that the
applicant assaulted the injured persons -
present case arose out of a sudden
quarrel and scuffle - applicant assaulted
the injured persons with a saw and
screw driver, which are not regular
weapons of assault - it indicates that the
applicant did not have any intention to
cause the incident - all the injuries
suffered by the injured persons were
simple in nature, except two injuries -
Accused/applicant
&
his
son
also
suffered injuries in the incident, but
none
of
the
prosecution
witnesses
mentioned
these
injuries
in
their
statements to the police, which primafacie indicates that they are not truthful
witnesses and are not reliable - On
affidavit under taking was given that in
case the applicant is granted bail, he will
not abscond and he will abide by all the
conditions imposed on him by the Court
-
State
or
the
informant
did
not
presented any facts or circumstances
that
would
suggest
that
the
accused/applicant would abscond or not
appear for trial if released on bail -
Given these factors, the court granted
bail to the accused.

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. Sanjay Chandra Vs CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40

2. Satender Kumar Antil Vs Central Bureau of
Investigation 2022 Scc OnLine SC 825

3. Emperor Vs H. L. Hutchinson AIR 1931 All
356

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

1.

Heard
Sri
Gopal
Swaroop
Chaturvedi, Senior Advocate, assisted by
1282 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Sri Shishir Tandon Advocate, the learned
counsel for the applicant, Sri Dinesh
Kumar Srivastava Advocate, the learned
AGA for the State, Sri Rajeev Sawhney
Advocate, the learned counsel for the
informant and perused the record.

2. The instant application has been
filed by the applicant seeking his release on
bail in Case Crime No.41 of 2021, under
Sections 307, 436, 325, I.P.C. and Section 7
of the Criminal Law Amendment Act,
Police
Station
Pheel
Khana,
District
Kanpur Nagar.

3. The aforesaid case has been
registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged
by the informant Ashish Kumar Jain on
21.07.2021 at 14.44 hours against the
applicant Pawan Kumar Verma and his son
Anand Verma, alleging that both the
accused
persons
had
assaulted
the
informant's nephews Tarun Jain and Rahul
Jain on the same day at 10.30 a.m. with
sharp edged weapons with intention to kill
them and the accused persons also tried to
put their house on fire. The FIR further
states that the nephews of the informant
were admitted to a hospital by the police.

4. The injury report of Tarun Jain
annexed with the affidavit filed in support
of the bail application mentions six incised
wounds and an abrasion. Five injuries were
kept under observation and the injured was
referred for C.T. Examination. Injury no.4
was found to have been caused with a hard
& blunt object, whereas the other injuries
were reported to have been caused by a
sharp object. Injury no.6 was an incised
would of size 0.3 X 0.3 X 1.0 C.M. in the
chest cavity.

5. The injury report of Rahul Jain
mentions a lacerated wound on left side of
his forehead, a contused swelling, three
incised wounds and an abrasion and the
doctor has opined that injuries nos.1, 3, 4,
& 5 were caused by some sharp object and
the injuries nos.2 & 6 were simple in
nature, caused by some hard and blunt
object.

6.

Supplementary
medical
examination report of the injured Tarun
Jain issued by Madhuraj Hospital on
21.07.2021 mentions that he had undergone
a surgical operation on 17.07.2021 and the
doctor reported that injuries nos.1 & 2 were
dangerous to life.

7. In the affidavit filed in support of
the bail application it has been stated that
the applicant's son Anand Verma, who is
the co-accused in the present case, has
purchased a property from a relative of the
informant; that Rahul Jain and Tarun Jain
have filed Suit No.639 of 2016, in the court
of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kanpur
Nagar for seeking a declaration that the sale
deed executed in favour of the co-accused
is null and void and they also sought a
perpetual injunction. It has further stated in
the affidavit that a reply has been filed in
the aforesaid suit and the trial court has
rejected the application for temporary
injunction by means of an order dated
28.07.2021; that the aforesaid order dated
28.07.2021 was challenged before this
Court by filing F.A.F.O. No. 3321 of 2021
and on 18.05.2018 this Court has passed an
order admitting the appeal and directing the
parties to maintain status-quo with regard
to the suit property.

8. It has further been stated in the
affidavit
that
the
applicant
was
in
possession of the property in question and
being aggrieved against this, Tarun Jain and
Rahul Jain and some other co-accused
9 All. Pawan Kumar Verma Vs. State of U.P.
1283
persons had attacked the applicant's son
Anand Verma on 21.07.2021 at 9.30 a.m.
when he was cleaning his shop; that
hearing his hue and cry the applicant
reached their and tried to save him upon
which Tarun Jain and Rahul Jain and some
other persons caused injuries to the
applicant and his son Anand Verma; that
the injuries of the applicant and his son
were examined in the KPM Hospital,
Kanpur Nagar on 21.07.2021 itself.

9. The injury report of the applicant's
son Anand Verma states that he was
examined on 21.07.2021 at 12.25 P.M. and
multiple abrasions in an area of 13 cm. X 6
cm. on the left side of his chest; multiple
abrasion in an area of 18 cm. X 10 cm. on
the right side of the neck and shoulder of
the applicant, a contusion of the size 6 cm.
X 2 cm. on the right side of his chest were
found on his body and all the injuries
suffered by the injured were found to be
simple in nature. The applicant's son Anand
Verma (co-accused) was examined in the
same hospital on 21.07.2021 at 12.50 p.m.
and a lacerated wound of size of 1.5 cm. X
4.3 cm. on the left side of parietal region, a
lacerated wound of size 1.0 cm. X 0.5 cm.
over the left ring figure was found on his
body and all the injuries were found to be
simple in nature.

10. The affidavit also contains a
narration that when the applicant tried to
lodge a first information report of the
incident, the police did not accept his report
and rather it arrested the applicant and his
son on the date of the incident itself. On
24.09.2021,
the
applicant's
daughter
Vandana Verma has filed an application
under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before the
Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 10
Kanpur Nagar, which application is still
pending.

11. It has been contended in the
affidavit that since the applicant is already
in possession of the property in question,
he did not have any motive to committee
the offence; that the applicant is aged about
65 years; that it has been alleged that the
applicant and his son had assaulted the
injured persons with a saw and screw
driver, which are not regular weapons of
assault and it indicates that the applicant
and his son were not having any intention
to cause the incident.

12. In para-33 of the affidavit filed in
support of the bail application, the
applicant's criminal history of three cases
has been disclosed -(i) in Case Crime No.
26 of 2015, under Sections 332, 333, 504,
IPC, Police Station Moolganj, District
Kanpur Nagar, the applicant has been
granted bail by means of an order dated
24.02.2015, passed by the Metropolitan
Magistrate, Court No. 5, Kanpur Nagar; (ii)
in Case Crime No. 24C of 2004, under
Sections 420, 427, 458, 506, IPC, Police
Station Kotwali, District Kanpur Nagar, the
applicant has been acquitted of the charges
leveled against him, by means of judgment
and order dated 24.01.2009, passed by the
Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 4,
Kanpur Nagar and (iii) in Case Crime No.
24 A of 2008, under Sections 307, 326 323,
504, 506, IPC, Police Station Moolganj,
District Kanpur Nagar, the applicant has
been granted bail by means of an order
dated 17.06.2022, passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Kanpur
Nagar.

13. It has been asserted in the
affidavit that the applicant is innocent and
he has been falsely implicated in the
present and he is languishing in jail since
21.07.2021. The
affidavit
contains
a
categorical under taking that in case the
1284 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
applicant is granted bail, he will not
abscond and he will abide by all the
conditions imposed on him by this Court.

14. A copy of the recovery memo
filed alongwith the affidavit filed in support
of the bail application mentions that the
applicant's son had confessed that he had
made assault with a saw used to cut iron
and plastic and the applicant is alleged to
have confessed that he had assaulted with a
screw driver which is normally used to
break ice. Both of them are alleged to have
stated that they had thrown away the
weapons in an open space in front of their
house
and
both
the
weapons
were
recovered on their pointing out.

15. The injured Rahul Jain has filed a
counter affidavit stating that a civil dispute
is going on between the parties regarding
the house in question and as the applicant
could not get possession of the property in
dispute, he lodged an FIR dated 23.04.2016
against the seller Rajesh Jain and Brijesh
Jain, which is registered as Case Crime No.
66 of 2016, under Sections 420, 427, 468,
471, 406, 504, 506, IPC, in Police Station
Feelkhana, District Kanpur Nagar. The
counter affidavit further alleges that as the
applicant and his son could not take
possession of the property in dispute, they
attacked Rahul Jain and Tarun Jain with a
screw driver and a saw, causing serious
injury to both of them and they also set the
shop of Rahul Jain and Tarun Jain on fire
after pouring petrol on the goods of the
shop.

16. It has further been stated in the
counter affidavit that the footage of a
C.C.T.V. Camera shows that the applicant
and his son had poured petrol on the goods
of the shop and set it on fire. Several
photographs have been annexed with the
counter affidavit and it has been contended
that the same show the applicant and his
son pouring petrol on the goods of the shop
of the victim and putting the same on fire.
Several photograph of the injured Tarun
Jain have also been annexed with the
counter affidavit.

17. The State has also filed a counter
affidavit stating that in the statements of the
injured Tarun Jain and Rahul Jain recorded
under Section 161 Cr.P.C., they have
supported the FIR version and that during
investigation,
statements
of
several
witnesses have been recorded and all of
them have supported the prosecution
version.

18. On 12.05.2022, this Court had
passed an order directing the learned AGA
to produce the photographs taken from the
C.C.T.V. Footage of the alleged and the
State has filed a compliance affidavit
annexing
there
with
copies
of
the
photographs, which have already been
annexed alongwith the counter affidavit
filed on behalf of the informant.

19. Sri Gopal Swaroop Chaturvedi,
the learned Senior Advocate appearing for
the applicant, has submitted that the FIR
alleges that the applicant and his son had
assaulted the nephews of the informant
with sharp edged weapon but it has not
been specified as to which weapon was
used by the applicant and, therefore, the
FIR allegations are vague.

20. Sri Chaturvedi next submitted that
all the injuries suffered by the injured
persons are simple in nature, except two
injuries suffered by Tarun Jain in his chest
region, which could be dangerous to life.
He has further submitted that the applicant
and his son have also suffered several
9 All. Pawan Kumar Verma Vs. State of U.P.
1285
injuries in the incident and their medico
legal examination conducted on the same
day in the same hospital promptly, at 12:25
and
12:50
p.m.,
indicates
that
no
unnecessary time was lost in getting the
medico legal examination of the applicant
and his son conducted, so as to leave any
probability to assume that the injuries could
have
been
manufactured
during
the
intervening period.

21. Sri Chaturvedi has also submitted
that the applicant also tried to lodge an FIR
of the incident, but the police acting hand
in gloves with the family of the injured
persons, he did not lodge their FIR and the
applicant and his son both were taken into
custody on 21.07.2021 and thereafter the
applicant's daughter Vandana Verma has
filed an application under section 156(3)
Cr.P.C., which is still pending.

22. Sri Chaturvedi has further
contended that although several witnesses,
including both the injured persons and the
informant have been examined by the
police during investigation, none of them
stated anything which may explain the
injuries suffered by the applicant and his
son, which indicates that the witnesses are
hiding some relevant and material facts
about the incident and they are not truthful
witnesses and are not reliable.

23. The learned Senior Counsel for
the applicant has submitted that the present
case arises out of a sudden quarrel and
scuffle, in which the weapons allegedly
used were a screw driver and a saw and no
regular weapon of assault was used and
also keeping in view of the facts that except
the two injuries suffered by the injured
Tarun Jain, both the nephews of the
informant as well as the applicant and his
son have suffered numerous injuries.

24.

Refuting
the
aforesaid
submissions Sri Rajeev Sawhney, the
learned counsel for the informant has
submitted that all the witnesses examined
during
the
investigation
have
fully
supported the prosecution case, and there
are no inconsistencies in their statements.
He has submitted that both the injured
persons Rahul Jain and Tarun Jain have
suffered seven injuries, each, and Tarun
Jain had to remain admitted to a hospital
for 28 days and he had to undergo a
surgical operation.

25. Sri Sawhney has submitted that
this is actually not a cross case, in this case
the applicant and his son were the
aggressors and they had assaulted the
informant's
nephews,
causing
serious
injuries
to
them
and
thereafter
an
application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
has been filed on 24.09.2021 i.e. after more
than two months. He has referred to a
photocopy of a report submitted by the
police to the Metropolitan Magistrate,
Kanpur Nagar, stating that no application in
this regard has been submitted in the police
station and on the strength of the aforesaid
report he has submitted that the application
under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been filed
on false assertions and since its filing, it is
not being pursued, which indicates that
there is no force in the application.

26. The learned counsel for the
informant has further submitted that several
civil disputes are going on between the
parties and the applicant has filed a FIR
against the seller, alleging that they did not
handover possession of the property in
dispute to the applicant, which indicates
that the applicant had a motive to commit
the offense. He has submitted that a screw
driver and a saw were used by the applicant
and his son deliberately in order to give it a
1286 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
pretense of a sudden dispute. He has also
submitted that the injuries shown on the
body of the applicant and his son are
manufactured injuries.

27. The learned counsel for the
informant has next submitted that in the
present case the applicant and his son are the
aggressors and even if the injured persons
have caused some injuries to them while
exercising their right of self defense, the case
cannot be labeled as a cross case.

28. I have given a thoughtful
consideration to the rival submissions made
on behalf of the learned counsel for the
parties.

29. The FIR lodged in the present case
alleges that the applicant and his son had
made the assault with some unspecified
''sharp edged weapon'. There is no allegation
in the FIR or in the statements recorded under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. that any hard and blunt
object was used by the applicant and his son.
However, Dr. D. K. Srivastava, Emergency
Medical Hospital, KPN Hospital, has stated
that the injury at sl. no. 4 was found to have
been caused by a hard and blunt, for which
there is absolutely no explanation in the
prosecution case.

30. Moreover, the applicant and his son
both have suffered injuries in the incident,
which is established by their medico-legal
examination, which was conducted promptly
and none of the persons examined by the
police have made any whisper about the
injuries suffered by the applicant and his son,
which prima-facie indicates that they have
not come up with complete truth about the
incident.

31. The learned counsel for the
informant
has
made
very
elaborate
submissions regarding the civil dispute going
on between the parties. The background of
civil dispute, in my opinion, has no bearing
for considering the bail application of the
applicant, as the parameters for considering
an application for bail are totally different.
Neither the civil rights are to be adjudicated
by this Court while deciding an application
for bail nor is the Court required to record a
finding of innocence or guilt of the accused
while deciding the bail application. Although
several photographs have been annexed with
the counter affidavit, claiming that those have
been taken from the C.C.T.V. Footage in
which the incident has been recorded, there is
no photograph from which it can be inferred
that the applicant and his son had assaulted
the informant's nephews.

32. In Satender Kumar Antil versus
Central Bureau of Investigation 2022 Scc
OnLine SC 825, the Supreme Court has
reiterated that: -

"11.The principle that bail is the rule and
jail is the exception has been well recognised
through the repetitive pronouncements of this
Court."

33. The Supreme Court referred to a
decision of this Court in Emperorv.H. L.
HutchinsonAIR 1931 All 356 in which it
was said that an accused person who enjoys
freedom is in a much better position to look
after his case and to properly defend
himself than if he were in custody. As a
presumably innocent person he is therefore
entitled to freedom and every opportunity
to look after his own case. A presumably
innocent person must have his freedom to
enable him to establish his innocence.

34. InSanjay Chandrav.CBI,(2012)
1 SCC 40, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
observed that:
9 All. Pawan Kumar Verma Vs. State of U.P.
1287

"21. In bail applications, generally, it
has been laid down from the earliest times
that the object of bailis to secure the
appearance of the accused person at his
trial by reasonable amount of bail. The
object of bailis neither punitive nor
preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be
considered a punishment, unless it is
required to ensure that an accused person
will stand his trial when called upon. The
courts owe more than verbal respect to the
principle that punishment begins after
conviction, and that every man is deemed
to be innocent until duly tried and duly
found guilty.

22. From the earliest times, it was
appreciated that detention in custody
pending completion of trial could be a
cause of great hardship. From time to time,
necessity demands that some unconvicted
persons should be held in custody pending
trial to secure their attendance at the trial
but in such cases, "necessity" is the
operative test. In this country, it would be
quite contrary to the concept of personal
liberty enshrined in the Constitution that
any person should be punished in respect of
any matter, upon which, he has not been
convicted or that in any circumstances, he
should be deprived of his liberty upon only
the belief that he will tamper with the
witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most
extraordinary circumstances.

23. Apart from the question of
prevention being the object of refusal of
bail, one must not loose sight of the fact
that any imprisonment before conviction
has a substantial punitive content and it
would be improper for any court to
refusebail as a mark of disapproval of
former conduct whether the accused has
been convicted for it or not or to
refusebailto an unconvicted person for the
purpose
of
giving
him
a
taste
of
imprisonment as a lesson."

35. Examining the farts of the present
case in light of the law laid down in the
aforesaid cases, we find that the accused is
claiming ownership to the immovable
property in question, regarding which civil
litigation is also going on between the
parties and no such facts and circumstances
have been placed by the state or the
informant which may give rise to a
reasonable apprehension that in case the
accused is released on bail, he would
abscond and not he will not make himself
available to face the trial.

36. Having considered the aforesaid
facts and submissions and keeping in view
the fact that no regular weapon is alleged to
have been used in the present incident; that
the medico-legal examination report of both
the injured persons mentioned that the
injuries suffered had been caused by a sharp
object and by some hard and blunt object, and
there is no allegation in the F.I.R. that any of
the accused persons had used a hard and
blunt object and even in the statements
recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. there is no
allegation of any had and blunt object having
been used by any of the accused persons; that
the applicant and his son have also suffered
injuries in the incident; that none of the
persons giving statement before the police
has made any whisper about the injuries
suffered by the applicant and his son; that
prima-facie at this stage it appears that those
persons have not placed the complete and
correct facts in their statement given before
the police and also keeping in view of the
facts that the applicant is languishing in jail
since 27.07.2021, I am of the view that the
applicant is entitled to be released on bail
pending conclusion of the trial. The bail
application is accordingly allowed.

37. Let the applicant - Pawan Kumar
Verma, be released on bail in Case Crime
1288 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
No. 41 of 2021, under Sections 307, 436,
325, I.P.C. and Section 7 of the Criminal
Law Amendment Act, Police Station Feel
Khana, District Kanpur Nagar, on his
furnishing a personal bond and two reliable
sureties each of the like amount to the
satisfaction of the court concerned subject
to following conditions:-

(i) The applicant will not tamper with
the evidence during the trial.

(ii) The applicant will not influence
any witness.

(iii) The applicant will appear before
the trial court on the dates fixed, unless
personal presence is exempted.

(iv) The applicant shall not directly or
indirectly make inducement, threat or
promise to any person acquainted with the
facts of the case so as to dissuade him
from disclosing such facts to the Court to
any police officer or tamper with the
evidence.

38. In case of breach of any of the
above condition, the prosecution shall be at
liberty to move an application bail before
this Court seeking cancellation of bail.
----------
(2022) 9 ILRA 1288
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.09.2022

BEFORE

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

Jail Appeal No. 33 of 2020

Hakimuddin ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opp. Party

Counsel for the Appellant:
From Jail, Sri Vishesh Kumar (A.C.), Sri Ashish
Kumar Gupta

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Section
304-Appellant
not
mentally
fitundergoing
treatment-fight
between
the
deceased and the Appellant-he hit her and the
deceased
fell
down-died-life
sentence
is
excessive-offence on part of accused is not of
murder-culpable homicide not amounting to
murder-he assaulted in a heated St.-not in a fit
mental
St.-hit
by
spade-common
in
all
agricultural households-no premeditation or
intent-Life sentence substituted to sentence
already undergone.

Appeal allowed in part. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Madhavan & ors. Vs St. of T. N., reported in
(2017) 15 SCC 582

2. Gurmukh Singh Vs St. of Har. , reported in
(2019) 15 SCC 635
(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar
Mishra, J.)

1. This jail appeal arises out of
judgment and order dated 26.2.2011,
passed
by
Additional
Sessions
Judge/Special
Judge,
Chandauli,
in
Sessions Trial No.84 of 2007 (State Vs.
Hakimuddin), arising out of Case Crime
No.221
of
2006,
Police
Station
Mughalsarai, District Chandauli, convicting
and sentencing the appellant under Section
304 IPC with life imprisonment and fine of
Rs.10,000/- and in the event of default of
payment of fine to undergo further
additional rigorous imprisonment of two
years.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the
brief facts of the present case are that a