# Pradeep Bind v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2023) 5 ILRA 1363
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-04-21
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 4124 of 2018
- **Bench:** Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pradeep-bind-v-state-of-u-p-50180
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,1860 -
Section
376-A-Allegation
of
developing
intimacy on the pretext of marrying with the
victim-after some time Accused refused from
marrying her-radiological age was 18 years to
24 years-victim St.d in St.ment u/s 164 Cr.P.C.
that she was 18 years old-physical relation for
past 6 years prior to lodging the F.I.R.-relation
was consensual-false promise to marriage is not
proved.

Appeal allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

5 All. Pradeep Bind Vs. State of U.P.
1363
fine, if realised, be refunded to him
forthwith. The case property shall be dealt
with in a manner as directed by the trial
court.

15. The appellant is directed to file a
personal bond and two sureties each in the
like amount to the satisfaction of the court
concerned, in compliance of Section
437(A) Cr.P.C. which shall be in force for
6 months.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 1363
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN
MISHRA, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 4124 of 2018

Pradeep Bind ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Indrajeet Kumar Shukla, Sri Shailendra
Nath Tiwari

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,1860 -
Section
376-A-Allegation
of
developing
intimacy on the pretext of marrying with the
victim-after some time Accused refused from
marrying her-radiological age was 18 years to
24 years-victim St.d in St.ment u/s 164 Cr.P.C.
that she was 18 years old-physical relation for
past 6 years prior to lodging the F.I.R.-relation
was consensual-false promise to marriage is not
proved.

Appeal allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:
1. Shambhu Kharwar Vs St. of Uttar Pradesh &
anr., 2022 LawSuit (SC) 973

2. Sonu @ Subhash Kumar v. St. of U. P.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ram Manohar
Narayan Mishra, J.)

1. Heard Sri Indrajeet Kumar Shukla,
learned counsel for the convict-appellant,
learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and
perused the material placed on record.

2. This criminal appeal has been filed
against the judgment and order dated
4.6.2018, passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Ghazipur, in
Sessions Trial No. 31 of 2016, State Vs.
Pradeep Bind, arising out of Case Crime
No. 2058 of 2015, under Section 376-A
IPC & Section 3/5 of POCSO Act, Police
Station
Kotwali,
District
Ghazipur,
whereby the appellant was convicted and
sentenced under Section 376-A I.P.C. for
seven year rigorous imprisonment, with
fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default thereof he
has to undergo six months additional
rigorous imprisonment. The appellant has
been acquitted of charge under Section 3/5
of POCSO Act, as being extended the
benefit of doubt.

3. The brief facts of the case for the
purpose of present appeal is that the first
informant Smt. Jagrani, wife of Sri
Narayan
Bindh,
resident
of
Mohalla
Kapoorpur, Police Station Kotwali, District
Ghazipur, lodged an FIR with police station
concerned on 20.11.2015 at about 16:00
hours, on the basis of written report stating
therein that her daughter, the prosecutrix
used to visit her relative Jairam at
Mahmudpur, where accused who was also
frequenting as he is relative of Jairam.
Pradeep used to sell 'Toddy' in Tadishop
stalled by Jairam where he met prosecutrix
1364 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
6 years ago and they developed intimacy.
He would say that he would solemnize
marriage with prosecutrix and his assurance
was relied upon by prosecutrix as well as
by her parents. He would also visit the
home of the informant and used to make
relations with prosecutrix on assurance of
marriage. After some time, he got a job in
CISF and even then he would assure
prosecutrix to marry her but after some
time he refused to marry her on pretext that
eh would not solemnize marriage against
wishes of her parents. The medico legal
examination
of
the
prosecutrix
was
conducted on 21.11.2015 at Government
Hospital, Ghazipur, in which Doctor opined
that there are no signs/suggestion of recent
vaginal
intercourse,
yet
there
is
evidence/suggestion of old genital assault.
No physical injury is found. In pathological
examination of vaginal smear of victim, no
live or dead spermatozoa is detected. The
radiological age of the victim was found by
Doctor as 18 years as epiphysis around the
elbow and writ joint were found to be fused
in her X-ray report. Old healed hymen tear
at 6 O'clock position was found in her
internal
examination.
The
prosecutrix
supported the version set out in FIR lodged
at the instance of her mother in her
statement recorded under Sections 161 as
well as 164 Cr.P.C. She in her statement
recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. dated
2.12.2015 stated that she was aged around
18 years. She had gone to the place of her
maternal uncle where the brother-in-law
(saala) of her maternal uncle was also
residing. He kept her in good humor and
established physical relations with her for
around six years on assurance of marriage
and on his advice, she kept mum to this and
went back to her home. He would visit her
parental home and would make physical
relations with her surreptitiously. She
became pregnant two years before and he
gave her some medicine, which resulted in
miscarriage. When her mother caught both
of them, he stated to marry her but when he
got job, he refused to marry her. He also
expressed his refusal before Panchayat and
subsequently he began to demand Rs.5 lacs
as dowry for marriage. Police submitted the
charge-sheet
against
appellant
after
completing the investigation, with prayer to
prosecute him for charge under Section
376-A IPC and Section 3/5 of POCSO Act.
The accused was enlarged on bail by orders
of this Court during trial. After filing of
charge-sheet, the case was committed to
court of Sessions, Ghazipur. The chargesheet was filed in the court of Special
Judge, POCSO Act. At the stage of
prosecution evidence, PW-1 Smt. Jagrani
Devi, the mother of the prosecutrix, PW-2
prosecutrix, PW-3 Praveen Kumar, PW-4
Constable
Muharrir
Rajkumar,
PW-5
Doctor Chandra Sinha, PW-6 Sri Narayan
Pandey- father of the prosecutrix, PW-7
Lallan Singh Yadav, were examined in
support of the prosecution case.

4. After conclusion of the prosecution
evidence, the statement of accused were
recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in
which he has not taken any specific
defence. His defence is of denial.

5.

Learned
trial
court
heard
submissions of learned counsel for the
accused
appellant
and
learned
A.D.C.(Criminal) for the State and after
appreciation of evidence on record and
considering the submissions of learned
counsel for the parties, gave a finding that
the accused established physical relations
with
the
prosecutrix
on
giving her
assurance of marriage and her consent for
establishing physical relations cannot be
deemed as a free consent. The prosecutrix,
in her cross-examination on 24.6.2017,
5 All. Pradeep Bind Vs. State of U.P.
1365
deviated from her stand in her examinationin-chief and tried to exculpate the accused
and stated that her previous statements
before the Court was outcome of pressure
but she could not specify the person on
whose pressure, she had previously given
evidence against the accused. Learned
court below also observed that although
PW-7, Lallan Singh Yadav, the teacher in
Phoolchand
Yadav
Inter
College,
Dandapur, Ghazipur had proved the date of
birth of prosecutrix in scholar register,
recorded as 10.8.1997 but he admitted in
cross-examination that he has not brought
the scholar register of year 2013, in which
admission date of prosecutrix in his school
has been recorded. He also admitted that
the prosecutrix did not filed the pass
certificate of class 8 issued by her previous
school and for that reason, her transfer
certificate was not issued by his school. No
document was filed by the parents of the
prosecutrix in confirmation of her date of
birth. He came to know that primary
education of prosecutrix was carried out in
Raiganj School, Second, Ghazipur and in
the record of that school, her date of birth is
mentioned. He subsequently, came to know
that her date of birth in record of her
previous school is recorded as 1.7.1993.
Learned court below after considering the
entire evidence of PW-7 and statement of
prosecutrix in her cross-examination that
her actual date of birth is 1.7.1993, she was
found aged to be exceeding 18 years and
the trial court has given categorical finding
that the prosecutrix was major at the time
of incident and she has stated that her first
interaction with accused took place in the
year 2012, however, learned court below
concluded that on the basis of evidence, it
is found that the consent given by the
prosecutrix to accused to have physical
relations with her was not a free consent
and was given on assurance of the accused
that he would marry her in course of time,
thus learned court below placing reliance
on initial statement of prosecutrix, which
was consistent with her statement under
Section 164 Cr.P.C., found the accused
guilty of charge under Section 376-A IPC
but acquitted him of the charge under
Section 3/5 of POCSO Act.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that the learned trial court has
recorded a verdict of guilt against appellant
for charge under Section 376-A IPC, which
is against weight of evidence on record.
Learned trial court has misappreciated the
evidence on record while recording the
finding of guilt and sentencing the
appellant. He further submitted that from
the perusal of allegations made in the FIR
itself, it is clear that the same has been
lodged after an unexplained delay of six
years. Appellant was enlarged on bail
during trial as well as by orders of this
Court in present criminal appeal vide order
dated 16.1.2019 by Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court. The allegations against the
appellant is that he had established physical
relationship with the prosecutrix on false
promise of marriage is unfounded. He
further submitted that PW-5 Dr. Chandra
Sinha, who had carried out medico legal
examination of the victim on 21.1.2015 has
stated before the Court that on the date of
medical examination, the victim had stated
that a boy namely Pradeep Kumar, who is
her relative, has established physical
relationship with her by enticing her. She
met him at the place of her maternal uncle.
He would make physical relations with her
intermittently. However, when he secured a
job, he refused to marry her and also
refused to be abide by decisions of
Panchayat. The Doctor has further stated
that no mark of injury was found on the
person of victim. According to the X-ray
1366 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
report dated 31.11.2015, epifices of her
elbow and writ joints were found to be
fused and accordingly, she was found to be
exceeding 18 years. In cross-examination,
the Doctor has clarified that between the
age of 18 to 24 years, the fusion of writ and
elbow joints occurs in girls, therefore, her
age may be of between 18 to 24 years. The
Doctor also clarified that old healed hymen
tear, recorded by her, need not be due to
sexual assault. The Doctor has also
clarified that the old healed hymen torn
may be due to sexual intercourse and may
not be due to that, no definite opinion can
be given in this regard. Learned counsel for
the appellant further submitted that in FIR
no date or time of occurrence has been
mentioned.
There
is
no
consistency
between statement of first informant and
the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161
Cr.P.C. during investigation. The victim
stated that the appellant and she had fallen
in love and when she caught red handed by
her mother, only then the accused stated for
marriage. The accused has been falsely
implicated in the case. He has committed
no offence. He deserves to be acquitted of
the charge, for which he has been convicted
and sentenced, as above.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant
placed reliance on a judgement of Apex
Court in the case of Shambhu Kharwar
vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another,
2022 LawSuit (SC) 973, whereby, vide
order dated 5.10.2018, a Single Judge of
the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
dismissed an application instituted by the
appellant under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure 1973, for quashing
Criminal Case No 785 of 2018 in the Court
of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate
(First), Ballia arising out of Case Crime No
11 of 2018 registered at Police Signature
Not Verified Station Rasra, District Ballia
for an offence punishable under Section
376 of the Indian. The appellant had also
sought the quashing of a charge-sheet in
that case. Hon'be Apex Court observed that
the facts of the case, as they stand, which
are not in dispute, would indicate that the
ingredients of the offence under Section
376 IPC were not established. The High
Court has, therefore, proceeded to dismiss
the application under Section 482 of CrPC
on a completely misconceived basis.
Hon'ble Apex Court has placed reliance on
the case of Sonu @ Subhash Kumar v.
State of Uttar Pradesh, wherein it is
observed that :

"12. This Court has repeatedly
held that consent with respect to Section
375 of the IPC involves an active
understanding
of
the
circumstances,
actions and consequences of the proposed
act. An individual who makes a reasoned
choice to act after evaluating various
alternative actions (or inaction) as well as
the various possible consequences flowing
from such action or inaction, consents to
such action... [...]

14. [...] Specifically in the context
of a promise to marry, this Court has
observed that there is a distinction between
a false promise given on the understanding
by the maker that it will be broken, and the
breach of a promise which is made in good
faith but subsequently not fulfilled... [...]

16. Where the promise to marry
is false and the intention of the maker at the
time of making the promise itself was not to
abide by it but to deceive the woman to
convince her to engage in sexual relations,
there is a "misconception of fact" that
vitiates the woman's "consent". On the
other hand, a breach of a promise cannot
be said to be a false promise. To 7 2019 (9)
5 All. Pradeep Bind Vs. State of U.P.
1367
SCC 608 8 2021 SCC OnLine SC 181
establish a false promise, the maker of the
promise should have had no intention of
upholding his word at the time of giving it.
The "consent" of a woman under Section
375 is vitiated on the ground of a
"misconception
of
fact"
where
such
misconception was the basis for her
choosing to engage in the said act... [...]

18. To summarise the legal
position that emerges from the above cases,
the "consent" of a woman with respect to
Section 375 must involve an active and
reasoned
deliberation
towards
the
proposed act. To establish whether the
"consent" was vitiated by a "misconception
of fact" arising out of a promise to marry,
two propositions must be established. The
promise of marriage must have been a false
promise, given in bad faith and with no
intention of being adhered to at the time it
was given. The false promise itself must be
of immediate relevance, or bear a direct
nexus to the woman's decision to engage in
the sexual act."

8. Learned AGA has vehemently
opposed the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the appellant and
submitted that there is no error or infirmity
in the impugned judgment and order passed
by learned trial court and the same is in
consonance with law and the evidence
adduced during trial, which needs no
interference in present criminal appeal.

9. I have gone through the sworn
testimony of the witnesses recorded before
the trial court and considered the same in
the light of other documentary evidence on
record. The accused was charged for
offence punishable under Section 376-A
IPC and section 3/5 of POCSO Act on
22.6.2016.

10. Smt. Jagrani Devi- the mother of
the victim and informant of the case, as
PW-1 has has supported the FIR version
and proved her written report as Ex.Ka-1.
She has stated that the accused Pradeep
Kumar Bind has established physical
relations with her minor daughter on
assurance of marriage and he used to say
that he would love her. She got written
report scribed by a person sitting outside
the police station and affixed her thumb
impression thereon, before producing the
same for lodging of FIR. She got custody
of her daughter by orders of Court in
presence of her husband. Her marriage took
place in childhood and she has been blessed
with six children. The victim is her fourth
issue. Her brother Jairam started the
business of sale of toddy. She is not aware
whether he has obtained any license for
that. He used to visit her parental home.
Her brother used to call her daughter
(victim) in harvesting season. Whenever,
she visit the place of Jairam, some family
member would also accompany her. Her
daughter used to go there once in a year.

11. PW-2, the victim admitted her
statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
recorded by the Magistrate during her
evidence before court as PW-2. She stated
that accused is brother-in-law of her
maternal uncle Jairam Bind and she got
acquainted with him at the place of her
maternal uncle. 5 to 6 years before, once he
established physical relations with her
finding her alone, forcefully and thereafter
he told her that he would love her and on
assurance of marriage, he had made
physical relations with her subsequently
also. She was in telephonic contact with the
accused also, when she returned to her
parental place. He would also visit her
parental place and continued making
physical relations with her on assurance of
1368 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
marriage. However, when he got a job in
CISF, he refused to marry her in
September, 2015 and also demanded Rs.5
lacs
before
Panchayat.
In
crossexamination, she stated that she received
education from class Ist to VIth at Raiganj
Second, Ghazipur. She is not passed out of
Class VII. She stated that her medico legal
examination was conducted at District
Hospital, Ghazipur. She stated that in
primary school record, her date of birth is
recorded as 1.7.1993. She met accused
Pradeep Bind in the year 2012 for the first
time and they became friends. He is related
to her. Her parents had spoken to his
parents in connection with their marriage
but the parents of Pradeep Bind refused
their proposal. He is posted in CISF since
year 2012. In cross-examination dated
24.6.2017, she stated that accused had
never cheated her and he did not commit
rape on her. The statements she has given
prior too, were result of some pressure.
After this statement, she was permitted to
be
cross-examined
by
learned
ADC
(Criminal), in which she has stated that she
had given her previous statement in the
court under pressure, however, she declined
the
suggestion
that
her
subsequent
statement was result of some sort of
settlement with accused.

12. PW-3 Constable Praveen Kumar,
proved chik FIR as Ex.Ka-4 and extract of
G.D.
of
registration
of
case
dated
20.11.2015 as Ex.Ka-5 and stated that these
papers are in his writing and signature.
PW-4 Moharrir Raj Kumar also proved
these papers in his statements.

13. PW-5 Doctor Chandra Sinha, who
conducted medico legal examination of the
victim on 21.11.2015, stated that the victim
told her that her relative Pradeep Bind
enticed her and made physical relations
with her on the pretext of marriage and
subsequently refused to marry her before
Panchayat. She stated that in internal
examination of the victim, her hymen was
found in 6 O'clock position, bearing old
mark of injury and on the basis of her Xray report, her radiological age was found
exceeding
18
years.
Her
age
was
determined on the basis of fusion of her
elbow and writ joints and due to the fact
that epyfices of these bones had fused. She
might have been aged between 18 to 24
years.

14. PW-6 Ram Narayan Bind, father
of the victim, stated that accused was close
to his daughter and his entire family.
Negotiations about their marriage were
under way and even the time of their
marriage were fixed but 6 to 7 months
before, the accused got job in CISF and
refused to marry her. He established
physical relationship with his daughter. In
the meanwhile, a Panchayat was also called
in the matter. His daughter was aged
around 17 years at the time of incident.
However, in cross-examination, the witness
stated that the Investigating Officer had
never recorded his statement. His family
members told her that accused established
physical relations with his daughter on the
pretext of marriage. The date of birth of his
daughter is 1.7.1993 in primary school
records. He also stated that when the
accused secured a job, his family members
refused to marry him with his daughter. He
also admitted that as marriage could not be
settled, this wrong FIR was lodged in the
case, with a view to exert pressure for
marriage of accused.

15. PW-7 Lallan Singh Yadav, a
teacher of Phoolchand Yadav Inter college,
Dandapur,
Ghazipur
has
proved
the
academic records of the victim, in which
5 All. Pradeep Bind Vs. State of U.P.
1369
her date of birth recorded as 10.3.1997.
However, in cross-examination, he has
stated that the T.C. of previous school was
not filed by the victim in spite of his
directions and for that reason, T.C. was not
issued to her by his school. Subsequently,
he came to know that her actual date of
birth is 1.7.1993.

16. In prosecution case based on FIR
as well as statement of the informant as
well
as
victim
recorded
during
investigation, this fact emerged that FIR
was lodged in the case on 20.11.2015
whereas in FIR, this fact surfaced that
accused was having physical relations with
the victim six years prior to lodging of the
FIR but no prior report or complaint has
been made in connection with said charge.
The victim has stated in her statement
recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as well
as in her statement before the court that she
continued to have physical relations with
accused, even when she came back her
home from the place of her maternal uncle.
In statement of informant, who is mother of
the victim, this fact emerged that the victim
used to visit once in a year in harvesting
season the place of her maternal uncle and
that too she was accompanied by some
family member. On the basis of her date of
birth
recorded
in
school
record
of
Phoolchand Yadav Inter College, she has
attained age of majority 8 months before
the lodging of the FIR. In medico legal
examination report also, the Doctor has
categorically stated that on the basis of Xray report, her age was more than 18 years.
On the basis of radiological examination, it
might be with 18 years to 24 years. The
victim, in her cross-examination has
exculpated the accused for reasons best
known to her. The victim has changed her
stand from stage to stage. Therefore, it is
difficult to place reliance on her version.
However, from perusal of evidence on
record and version of victim including her
statement recorded under Section 164
Cr.P.C., it is discerned that the relations of
the victim and accused was consensual and
this fact is not proved that the promise of
marriage
given
by
the
accused
to
prosecutrix was false from very inception
and the false promise borne a direct nexus
to the decision of the prosecutrix to engage
in sexual act with the accused. No
specification of date, time and months of
sexual acts is given by the prosecutrix in
her various statements recorded under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. as well as during trial.
The father of the prosecutrix has stated
during his evidence before the court that
the FIR was lodged in the case due to the
fact that the accused side refused to marry
his daughter, after he secured a job. On
meticulous examination of evidence on
record, it is not proved beyond reasonable
doubt that the accused appellant had given
a promise to the prosecutrix to marry with
him, which at the inception was false and
on the basis of this, she was induced into a
sexual relationship. Therefore, it can be
held that the relationship between the
parties were purely consensual in nature.
This finding emerged after taking into
consideration the testimony of prosecutrix
as well as her parents recorded before the
court in the light of facts and circumstances
of the case. Taking into consideration, the
evidence regarding age of prosecutrix as
recorded in school records, the evidence of
Head Master as well as her radiological age
determined by the medical experts and
evidence of the Doctor who conducted
medico legal examination of the victim, it
would be held definitely that at the time of
alleged sexual interaction with the accused,
she was not minor. Learned court below
has lost sight of these facts while recording
the verdict of guilt against the accused
1370 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
appellant and sentencing him. In my
considered opinion, the prosecution has
failed to prove its case against accused
appellant
beyond
reasonable
doubt.
Therefore, the judgement and order passed
by learned court below is not sustainable
and liable to be set aside.

17. Accordingly, this appeal succeeds
and is allowed. Impugned judgment and
order of conviction dated on 4.6.2018,
passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Court No.1, Ghazipur, in Sessions
Trial No. 31 of 2016, State Vs. Pradeep
Bind, arising out of Case Crime No. 2058
of 2015, under Section 376-A IPC &
Section 3/5 of POCSO Act, Police Station
Kotwali, District Ghazipur is hereby, set
aside and accused appellant Pradeep Bind
is acquitted from charge under Section 376A IPC.

18. It is directed that the accused
appellant shall furnish a personal bond to
the satisfaction of court concerned and two
reliable sureties each in the like amount
before the trial court, which shall be
effective for a period of six months, along
with an undertaking that in the event of
filing of Special Leave Petition against the
instant judgment or for grant of leave, the
appellants on receipt of notice thereof
shall appear before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court.

19. 22. Let a copy of this judgment
along with lower court's record be sent
back to the court concerned for immediate
compliance and necessary action.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 1370
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.04.2023

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 4697 of 2015

Ahmad Sher ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Maohammd Nadeem, Sri Abhhishek
Tripathi, Sri Durgvijay

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Section 304 - deceased was tortured and
harassed by her in laws-for which civil suit filed
and continued for about seven years-ended in
compromise-in between accused appellant remarried with someone-when deceased reached
matrimonial home after the compromise-in laws
started harassing her for taking back the given
piece of land in compromise-deceased was done
to death by her husband-accused appellant with
help of his brother and second wife-death
caused was not premediated-accused though
had knowledge and intention-but did not
wanted to do away with the deceased-falls
under exception 1 & 4-culpable homicide not
amounting to murder-life imprisonment reduced
to 10 years of imprisonment.

Appeal partly allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Criminal Appeal No. 4345 of 2014 (Nafa Singh
Vs St. of U.P.) decided on 10.02.2023;

2. Criminal Appeal No. 5657 of 2011 (Santosh
Vs St. of U.P.)[4] decided on 22.02.2021;

3. Criminal Appeal No. 1838 to 840 of 2019 2022 0
Supreme (SC) 564 decided on 12.07.2022.

4. Criminal Appeal No. 923 of 2011 arising out
of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 8847 of 2009 decided on
13.04.2011