# Pradeep Kumar (In Jail) v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2021) 2 ILRA 1044
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-11-14
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 2324 of 2014
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Gautam Chowdhary
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pradeep-kumar-in-jail-v-state-of-u-p-46720
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860-
Section 302- Conviction of husband- It is
proved fact that deceased died out of
septicemia. The learned judge below
punished appellant-accused under Section
302 I.P.C - The deceased has deposed that
it was her husband who had set her
2 All. Pradeep Kumar Vs. State of U.P.
1045
ablaze. The dying declaration has to
coupled with the other evidence as
evidence on record of P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and
P.W. 3 before turning hostile goes to show
that his sister was in hospital and was
trying to struggle for life-The question
which
falls
for
our
consideration
is
whether, on reappraisal of the peculiar
facts and circumstances of the case, the
conviction of the appellant under Section
302 of I.P.C. of the Indian Penal Code
should
be
upheld
or
the
conviction
deserves to be converted under Section
304 Part-I or Part-II of the Indian Penal
Code

From the evidence it is proved that the cause of
death of the deceased was septicaemia and she
died several days after the occurrence therefore
the offence of culpable homicide not amounting
to murder is made out.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860-
Sections 302 & 304 ( Part1)- On overall
scrutiny of the facts and circumstances of
the present case coupled with the opinion
of the Medical Officer and considering the
principle laid down by the Apex Court in
the Case of Tukaram and Ors VsState of
Maharashtra, reported in (2011) 4 SCC
250 and in the case of B.N. Kavatakar and
Another VsState of Karnataka, reported in
1994 SUPP (1) SCC 304, we are of the
considered opinion that the offence would
be one punishable under Section 304 partI of the IPC.

It is settled law that where the accused had no
intention to cause death but had knowledge that
the injuries inflicted by him are sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause death, then
the offence would be one u/s 304( Part I) of the
IPC.
The conviction of the appellant under Section
302 of Indian Penal Code is converted to
conviction under Section 304 (Part I) of Indian
Penal Code and the appellant is sentenced to
undergo 10 years of incarceration with fine
which is reduced to Rs.1,000/-.

Criminal Appeal partly allowed.(Para 15,
17, 18, 19, 20, 21) (E-2)
Judgements/ Case law cited:-

## Text

1044 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
committing robbery as well as murder by
the miscreants. The findings of the learned
trial Court to this extent bears no infirmity.

43. So far as shifting the burden of
prove under Section 106 of Evidence Act
upon
the
accused-appellants
Hotilal
Rajpoot and Lajjawati is concerned, same
is against the evidence on record because
there is evidence on record that Hotilal
Rajpoot and Lajjawati had been residing
in a separate house and on the fateful day
they were not present at the place of
occurrence, as such, the burden of proof
under Section 106 of the Evidence Act
cannot be shifted upon the accusedappellants Hotilal Rajpoot and Lajjawati.
Therefore, the conviction and sentence
passed against the appellants Hotilal
Rajpoot and Lajjawati is based on the
oral appreciation of evidence and same
deserves to be set aside, while the
conviction and sentence passed against
appellant Arvind Kumar deserves to be
upheld.

44. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal
No. 7291 of 2019 (Hotilal Rajpoot and
another Vs. State of U.P.) is allowed and
the Criminal Appeal No. 7649 of 2019
(Arvind Kumar Vs. State of U.P.) is
dismissed.

45. In Criminal Appeal No. 7291 of
2019, the appellants Hotilal Rajpoot and
Lajjawati are acquitted of all the charges
leveled against them. They are in jail.
They be released forthwith, in case, they
are not wanted in connection with some
other case provided they file personal
bonds and two sureties each in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the Sessions
Judge, Auraiya in compliance of the
provisions contained under Section 437A, Cr.P.C.

46. In Criminal Appeal No. 7649 of
2019, the appellant Arvind Kumar is in jail.
The conviction and sentence awarded
against him vide judgment and order
dated 14.11.2019 is hereby affirmed. He
is directed to serve out the remaining
sentence as has been awarded by the trial
Court.

47. Office is directed to communicate
this order to the court concerned forthwith
to ensure compliance and further send back
the lower court record.
----------
(2021)02ILR A1044
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.02.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER , J.
THE HON'BLE GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 2324 of 2014

Pradeep Kumar ...Appellant(In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri D.K.Singh, Sri A.K.Rai, Sri Hemendra
Pratap Singh, Sri Jitendra Pal Singh, Sri
Nisheeth Yadav, Sri Pankaj Kumar Shukla,
Sri Rupesh Sharma, Sri Sudhir Dixit, Sri
Urvashi Jain

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860-
Section 302- Conviction of husband- It is
proved fact that deceased died out of
septicemia. The learned judge below
punished appellant-accused under Section
302 I.P.C - The deceased has deposed that
it was her husband who had set her
2 All. Pradeep Kumar Vs. State of U.P.
1045
ablaze. The dying declaration has to
coupled with the other evidence as
evidence on record of P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and
P.W. 3 before turning hostile goes to show
that his sister was in hospital and was
trying to struggle for life-The question
which
falls
for
our
consideration
is
whether, on reappraisal of the peculiar
facts and circumstances of the case, the
conviction of the appellant under Section
302 of I.P.C. of the Indian Penal Code
should
be
upheld
or
the
conviction
deserves to be converted under Section
304 Part-I or Part-II of the Indian Penal
Code

From the evidence it is proved that the cause of
death of the deceased was septicaemia and she
died several days after the occurrence therefore
the offence of culpable homicide not amounting
to murder is made out.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860-
Sections 302 & 304 ( Part1)- On overall
scrutiny of the facts and circumstances of
the present case coupled with the opinion
of the Medical Officer and considering the
principle laid down by the Apex Court in
the Case of Tukaram and Ors VsState of
Maharashtra, reported in (2011) 4 SCC
250 and in the case of B.N. Kavatakar and
Another VsState of Karnataka, reported in
1994 SUPP (1) SCC 304, we are of the
considered opinion that the offence would
be one punishable under Section 304 partI of the IPC.

It is settled law that where the accused had no
intention to cause death but had knowledge that
the injuries inflicted by him are sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause death, then
the offence would be one u/s 304( Part I) of the
IPC.
The conviction of the appellant under Section
302 of Indian Penal Code is converted to
conviction under Section 304 (Part I) of Indian
Penal Code and the appellant is sentenced to
undergo 10 years of incarceration with fine
which is reduced to Rs.1,000/-.

Criminal Appeal partly allowed.(Para 15,
17, 18, 19, 20, 21) (E-2)
Judgements/ Case law cited:-

1. Sudershan Kumar Vs St. of Delhi, AIR 1974
SC 2328

2. St. of Har. Vs Pala & ors., (1996) 8 SCC 51

3. Veerla Satyanarayana Vs St. of A.P., (2009)
16 SCC 316

4. Munnawar & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors., (2010)
5 SCC 451

5. Vidya Sagar Dwivedi Vs St. of U.P.,
MANU/UP/0502/2020

6. Ashiq Ali & anr. Vs St. of U.P., Crl. Appeal
No.4702 of 2012 decided on 10.2.2021

7. Manish Jain Vs St. of U.P., Crl. Appeal No.
3347 of 2015 decided on 29.1.2021

Judgements/ Case law relied upon:-

1. Maniben Vs St. of Guj., AIR 2010 SC 1261

2. Crl. Appeal No. 954 of 2007 (Gulam Hussain
Zalil Ahmed Shaikh Vs St. of Guj.) decided on
5.8.2013

3. Crl. Appeal No. 806 of 2011 (Chhaganbhai
Limjibhai Palas Vs St. of Guj.) decided on
20.11.2013

4. Crl. Appeal No.318 of 2015 (Pramod Kumar
Vs St. of U.P.) decided on 28.2.2019

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal
Jayendra Thaker, J. &
Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary, J.)

1. This appeal has been preferred against
the Judgment and order dated 29.5.2014 passed
by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court
No. 4, Aligarh in Sessions Trial No. 892 of
2011, State Vs. Pradeep Kumar and another,
arising out of Case Crime No.8 of 2011 under
Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and 3⁄4 Dowry
Prohibition Act, Police Station Harduaganj,
District Aligarh.
1046 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

2. Facts in short as culled out from the
prosecution story are that on 16.1.2011 first
informant moved a written report at Police
Station
Harduaganj,
District
Aligarh
alleging that on 25th February 2008 he
solemnized the marriage of his sister
Rashmi with Pradeep Kumar giving 10 tola
gold ornaments, T.V., fridge, washing
machine, bed, almirah, sofa, etc. and 4 lakh
rupees in cash as dowry. But, father of
accused-appellant, namely, Rishi Pal was
not happy with the dowry given and used to
harass his sister and demand motor cycle.
When his sister asked the first informant to
give motor cycle otherwise they will kill
her, the first informant said that he will give
motor cycle on which they told him as to
why less money was given while deal was
of Rs.6 lakhs. It is further alleged that they
send his sister many times to informant's
home and she lived with him for many
months. Sister of the first informant told
that her sister-in-law Neetu. Sushama,
father-in-law Rishipal and husband Pradeep
colluding themselves used to commit mar
peet with her. On 6.1.2011 first informant
came to know that her sister was killed by
her in-laws pouring kerosene oil and setting
her ablaze. On information, when first
informant and some persons of village
reached village Samastpur, his sister was
not there. They came to know that she was
admitted in Aligarh Medical College.
Reaching there, they found that his sister
was struggling hard in between life and
death. First informant took her out from
Medical College and got admitted in
Jeevan Hospital. None of her in-laws came
at neither Medical College nor Jeevan
Hospital to see her. He asked his sister as to
how she suffered who told him that brother
as told by her already for giving them
motor cycle if he wanted to keep her alive,
on account of not giving motor cycle, at
about 5.00 p.m. her sister-in-law Sushama
and Neetu caught her hold and father-inlaw exhorted what was being looked at on
which
her
husband
Pradeep
poured
kerosene
oil
from
cane;
stroke
the
matchstick and threw it upon her; her
clothes caught fire; when she raised alarm,
neighbours
converged
the
place
and
extinguished the fire but her in-laws were
only seeing her and waiting for her death
and they along with some villagers dropped
her at Medical College and rushed away. It
is further alleged that during treatment, on
14.1.2011 at about 9.15, she died. On
15.1.2011, post mortem of her person was
conducted and after performing her last
rites, he had gone to police station for
getting report lodged.

3. With regard to the aforesaid
incident which occurred on 6.1.2011 at
about 21.15, the police registered Case
Crime No. 8 of 2011 under Sections 498A,
304B
I.P.C.
and
Section
3⁄4
Dowry
Prohibition Act on 16.1.2011 at 17.30.
Police started investigation and after
investigation, charge sheet was submitted
in the court.

4. Trial Court on 23.8.2012 framed
charges under Sections 498A, 304B,
302/34 I.P.C. and Section 3⁄4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act. The accused pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to bring home the charges,
prosecution examined as many as eleven
witnesses, namely, P.W. 1 Satish Kumar
(first informant); P.W. 2 Viresh Kumar
(brother of deceased); P.W.3 Chandravir
(brother of deceased); P.W. 4 Manoj
Kumari (bhabhi of the deceased); P.W. 5
Mamta Devi (bhabhi of the deceased); P.W.
6 Smt. Kusuma Devi (mother of the
deceased) and as formal witnesses P.W.7
Shyam Mohan Pathak, Retired Additional
2 All. Pradeep Kumar Vs. State of U.P.
1047
City Magistrate-I; P.W.8 Dr. Amit Agrawal;
P.W. 9 Head Constable Pradeep Kumar;
P.W. 10 Dr. Sudhir Kumar Verma and P.W.
11 Virendra Singh, Investigating Officer (
retired Police Superintendent).

6. In support of ocular version,
documents, namely, chik F.I.R. (Ext. Ka20); G.D. Entry (Ext. Ka-21); site plan of
the place of occurrence (Ext. Ka-23); letter
written to R.I. (Ext. Ka-3); letter to C.M.O.
(Ext. Ka-4); photo nash (Ext. Ka-5), Police
Form No. 13 (Ext. Ka-6); panchayatnama
of deceased Rashmi (Ext. Ka-7); post
mortem report (Ext. Ka-12); document
relating to treatment of deceased at Jeevan
Hospital (Ext. Ka-9) with (Ext. Ka-19);
charge sheet (Ext. Ka-24); statement of the
deceased before death (Ext. Ka-2); case
sheet (Ext. Ka-8) were filed by prosecution.

7. After hearing learned counsel for
the prosecution as well as defence, learned
Trial Judge convicted the appellant alone
for commission of offence under Section
302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to life
imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- and
in default of payment of fine, to undergo
further
six
months
additional
imprisonment. The learned Judge acquitted
the accused appellant of offences under
Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3⁄4
Dowry Prohibition Act in for lack of
evidence. The learned Trial Judge acquitted
all the other accused and held the present
accused guilty of offence. Being aggrieved
with his conviction and sentence, the
accused-appellant is before this Court.

8. Heard Sharda Prasad Mishra,
learned counsel for the appellant and Sri
Ajit Rey, learned A.G.A. for the State.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant
has
made
submissions
that
accusedappellant is the husband of the deceased.
He is in jail for about 10 years. It is further
submitted that no offence has been
committed by the accused and the death of
the deceased was due to septicemia.

10. In support of his submissions,
learned counsel for the appellant has given
a compilation of Judgments on which he
places reliance titled Tholan Vs. State of
Tamil
Nadu,
1984
(2)
SCC
133;
Shaiknurjahan Vs. State of A.P., 2003 0
Supreme (AP) 959; State of Uttar
Pradesh Vs. Gambhir Singh, 2005 (11)
SCC 271; Vineet Kumar Chauhan Vs.
State of U.P., 2007 (14) SCC 660;
Gurmukh Singh Vs. State of Haryana,
2009 3 Crimes (SC) 416; Rijo Vs. State of
Kerala, 2010 CrLJ 1315; Tukaram and
others Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2011)
14 SCC 250; Veeran and others Vs. State
of M.P., 2011 (3) Supreme 228; State of
Rajasthan
Vs.
Mehram
&
others,
Criminal Appeal No. 1894 of 2010
decided by Apex Court on May 6, 2020;
and Stalin Vs. State represented by the
Inspector of Police, Criminal Appeal No.
577 of 2020 decided by the Apex Court on
September 9, 2020 and submitted that the
accused could not have been convicted
under Section 302 I.P.C. It is submitted that
the the offence would be under Section 304
II or Section 304 I of I.P.C as per the
decisions on which heavy reliance is being
placed by the counsel for the appellant. It is
further submitted that if the Court comes to
the conclusion that the accused has
committed offence, in that case as the
accused has been in jail for more than 9
years without remission, he may be granted
fixed term punishment of incarceration.

11. It has been vehemently objected
by learned A.G.A. for the State. Learned
counsel has taken us through the evidence
1048 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
on record and the manner in which the
deceased was done to death bu all accused.
Learned A.G.A. for the State has submitted
that life imprisonment awarded to the
accused in the facts and circumstances of
the case was the only punishment which
can be awarded to the accused who had
poured keorsene oil and set the deceased
ablaze in the matrimonial home. The
injuries were such that the death was not
because of the septicemia but was coupled
with the fact that injury hasd taken place
due to setting the deceased at fire. Learned
A.G.A. has relied on the decisions in (i)
Sudershan Kumar Vs. State of Delhi,
reported in AIR 1974 SC 2328, (ii) State
of Haryana Vs. Pala and others, (1996) 8
SCC 51, (iii) Veerla Satyanarayana Vs.
State of Andhra Pradesh, (2009) 16 SCC
316, (iv) Munnawar and others Vs. State
of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2010) 5
SCC 451 and (v) Vidya Sagar Dwivedi
Vs. State of U.P., MANU/UP/0502/2020.
Learned counsel for the State has heavily
relied on the decision of this Court in the
case of Ashiq Ali and another Vs. State of
U.P., Criminal Appeal No.4702 of 2012
decided on 10.2.2021 and submitted that
dying declaration cannot be brushed aside.
Further he heavily relied on decision of this
Court in the case of Manish Jain Vs. State
of U.P., Criminal Appeal No. 3347 of
2015 decided on 29.1.2021 and submitted
that just because death occurred due to
septicemia, the accused cannot be dealt
with leniently. We place reliance on the
decision titled Maniben Vs. State of
Gujarat, AIR 2010 SC 1261, decision of
Gujarat High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
954 of 2007 (Gulam Hussain Zalil
Ahmed Shaikh Vs. State of Gujarat)
decided on 5.8.2013 and in Criminal
Appeal No. 806 of 2011 (Chhaganbhai
Limjibhai Palas Vs. State of Gujarat)
decided on 20.11.2013 and the decision of
Lucknow Bench of this High Court in
Criminal
Appeal
No.318
of
2015
(Pramod Kumar Vs. State of U.P.)
decided on 28.2.2019 so as to see whether
the case would fall under what provision of
law.

12. We place reliance on the decision
titled Maniben Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR
2010 SC 1261, decision of Gujarat High
Court in Criminal Appeal No. 954 of 2007
(Gulam Hussain Zalil Ahmed Shaikh Vs.
State of Gujarat) decided on 5.8.2013 and
in Criminal Appeal No. 806 of 2011
(Chhaganbhai Limjibhai Palas Vs. State
of Gujarat) decided on 20.11.2013 and the
decision of Lucknow Bench of this High
Court in Criminal Appeal No.318 of 2015
(Pramod Kumar Vs. State of U.P.)
decided on 28.2.2019 so as to see whether
the case would fall under what provision of
law.

13. The incident occurred on 6.1.2011
and deceased died on 14.1.2011 due to
septicemia. The evidence of Dr. Amit
Agrawal and Dr. Sudhir Kumar Verma,
who have been examined as P.Ws 8 and 10
and the post mortem and medical report go
to show that death occurred due to
septicemia as a result of thermal burns. The
medical report shows that there was
superficial to deep burn all over the body
except part of face and skull, part of lower
abodmen, part of left feet, part of right
hand, sluff material present at places, there
was 90 per cent burns injuries.

14. The evidence of Dr. Amit Agrawal
and Dr. Sudhir Kumar Verma will have to
be discussed at length the reason being the
learned counsel for the appellant has
contended that the deceased was not in
proper state of mind to give her dying
declaration. Dr. Amit Agrawal (P.W. 8) had
2 All. Pradeep Kumar Vs. State of U.P.
1049
treated the patient. He had called the
Magistrate. He had examined the patient
who is in proper state of mind. Even after
examining the patient and after the dying
declaration was recorded, he had examined
her action and thereafter gave certificte. He
was treating doctor. He has withstood the
cross-examination that he has given the
certificate that patient was in stable mind.
Dr. Sudhir Kumar Verma (P.W.10) is also
doctor who had thereafter done the post
mortem. He was 25 years of age. He had
recorded
injuries
which
were
there.
According to him, the death was due to
thermal burn injuries which had caused
infection in the entire body and patient died
due to septicemia.

15. From the aforesaid fact, it is
proved fact that deceased died out of
septicemia. The learned judge below
punished appellant-accused under Section
302 I.P.C.

16. The decision in Manish Jain
(supra) though in different facts would
enure benefit to the accused as, in our case,
we find that accused had set ablaze his wife
but, at the same time, from the evidence on
record, it is seen that most of the witnesses
have not supported the case of the
prosecution. Evidence of P.W. 1 clinches
the issue that the in-laws had taken the
deceased to the hospital but thereafter they
had rushed away. The deceased has
deposed that it was her husband who had
set her ablaze. The dying declaration has to
coupled with the other evidence as
evidence on record of P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and
P.W. 3 before turning hostile goes to show
that his sister was in hospital and was
trying to struggle for life.

17. Considering the evidence of the
witnesses and also considering the medical
evidence including post mortem report,
there is no doubt left in our mind about the
guilt of the present appellant. However, the
question which falls for our consideration
is whether, on reappraisal of the peculiar
facts and circumstances of the case, the
conviction of the appellant under Section
302 of I.P.C. of the Indian Penal Code
should be upheld or the conviction deserves
to be converted under Section 304 Part-I or
Part-II of the Indian Penal Code. It would
be relevant to refer Section 299 of the
Indian Penal Code, which read as under:

"299.
Culpable
homicide:
Whoever causes death by doing an act with
the intention of causing death, or with the
intention of causing such bodily injury as is
likely to cause death, or with the knowledge
that he is likely by such act to cause death,
commits the offence of culpable homicide."

18. The academic distinction between
''murder' and ''culpable homicide not
amounting to murder' has always vexed the
Courts. The confusion is caused, if Courts
losing sight of the true scope and meaning
of the terms used by the legislature in these
sections, allow themselves to be drawn into
minute abstractions. The safest way of
approach
to
the
interpretation
and
application of these provisions seems to be
to keep in focus the keywords used in the
various clauses of Section 299 and 300 of
I.P.Code. The following comparative table
will be helpful in appreciating the points of
distinction between the two offences.

Section 299
Section 300
A
person
commits
culpable
homicide
if
the
act
by
Subject to certain exceptions
culpable homicide is murder
is the act by which the death
is caused is done.
1050 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
which
the
death
is
caused
is
done-
INTENTION
(a) with the
intention
of
causing
death; or
(1) with the intention of
causing death; or
(b) with the
intention
of
causing such
bodily injury
as is likely to
cause death;
or
(2) with the intention of
causing such bodily injury as
the offender knows to be
likely to

cause the death of the person
to whom the harm is caused;
KNOWLED
GE
KNOWLEDGE
(c) with the
knowledge
that the act is
likely
to
cause death.
(4) with the knowledge that
the act is so immediately
dangerous

that it must in all
probability cause death or
such bodily injury as is
likely to cause death, and
without
any
excuse
for
incurring the risk of causing
death or such injury as is
mentioned above.

19. On overall scrutiny of the facts
and circumstances of the present case
coupled with the opinion of the Medical
Officer and considering the principle laid
down by the Apex Court in the Case of
Tukaram
and
Ors
Vs.
State
of
Maharashtra, reported in (2011) 4 SCC
250 and in the case of B.N. Kavatakar and
Another Vs. State of Karnataka, reported
in 1994 SUPP (1) SCC 304, we are of the
considered opinion that the offence would
be one punishable under Section 304 part-I
of the IPC.

20. In view of the aforementioned
discussion, we are of the view that this
appeal has to be partly allowed, hence, is
partly allowed.

21. The conviction of the appellant
under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code is
converted to conviction under Section 304
(Part I) of Indian Penal Code and the
appellant is sentenced to undergo 10 years
of incarceration with fine which is reduced
to Rs.1,000/-. Default sentence is reduced
to three months.

22. Appellant-accused is in jail. If ten
years of incarceration is over, he shall be
released forthwith, if not required in any
other case. He would be entitled to all kind
of remissions. The judgement and order
dated 29.5.2014 shall stand modified
accordingly.

23. Let a copy of this judgment along
with the trial court record be sent to the
Court and Jail Authorities concerned for
compliance.
----------

(2021)02ILR A1050
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.01.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER , J.
THE HON'BLE GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 3347 of 2015

Manish Jain ...Appellant(In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party