# Raj Kumar Verma (In Jail) v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 5 ILRA 1237
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-06-02
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No.248 of 2022
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/raj-kumar-verma-in-jail-v-state-of-u-p-ors-48468
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code,1973 - Section - 372, - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Section - 302, 394,
r/w Section 35-C - Criminal Appeal -
challenging
the
order
of
acquittal
-
Unnamed FIR, No prior animosity, neither
eye witnesses nor any recovery - names of
accused persons are included after one year
only
on
the
basis
of
one
alleged
extrajudicial confession - it is settled law
that an extra-judicial confession is a very
weak piece of evidence and same has to be
examined with extra care - prosecution fails
to established the charges against the
accused persons beyond the reasonable
doubt - finding of trial court cannot at all be
termed as perverse - hence acquitted is
proper - Appeal dismissed. (Para - 5, 6, 19,
17, 20, 21, 22)

Appeal Dismissed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:-
1238 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

## Text

5 All. Raj Kumar Verma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1237
be made the basis for any further action
which has to be an independent and
objective decision on the part of the
Registrar who is the competent authority.
Accordingly, this show cause notice shall
not be read or proceeded further instead a
fresh notice shall be issued by the Registrar
as ordered hereinafter.

38.

The
appointing/disciplinary
authority is directed to issue a fresh show
cause notice to the petitioner in the light of
the relevant rules which may be applicable
asking the petitioner to submit his response
to the same. Thereafter, considering the
response, if any submitted by the petitioner,
the appointing/disciplinary authority shall
take a final decision in the matter
independently and objectively considering
the entire facts of the case, material on
record (except the noting of the Vice
Chancellor dated 14.01.2020), the Rule
position i.e., Statute 39 quoted hereinabove,
and the law on the subject as may be placed
before
it,
but,
ignoring
the
observations/findings,
if
any
in
the
impugned
Government
Order
dated
02.06.2020 as to the merits of the matter,
which shall not be read at all by the
disciplinary authority for this purpose. He
shall take decision within two months.

39. If at any stage the appointing
authority/disciplinary authority forms an
opinion that instead of the proceedings at
hand, proceedings for cancellation of
appointment are liable to be undertaken
based on the material collected, it shall be
open for him to proceed accordingly as per
law.

40. The application of the applicant
seeking impleadment through Dr. V.K.
Singh, Advocate is disposed off as he has
been heard.

41. The petition is disposed of in the
aforesaid terms.
----------
(2022)05ILR A1237
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.03.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.
THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Criminal Appeal No.248 of 2022
(Under section 372 Cr.P.C.)

Raj Kumar Verma ...Appellant (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Rajiv Gupta, Sri Dileep Kumar, Sri Rajrshi
Gupta, Shristri Gupta

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code,1973 - Section - 372, - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Section - 302, 394,
r/w Section 35-C - Criminal Appeal -
challenging
the
order
of
acquittal
-
Unnamed FIR, No prior animosity, neither
eye witnesses nor any recovery - names of
accused persons are included after one year
only
on
the
basis
of
one
alleged
extrajudicial confession - it is settled law
that an extra-judicial confession is a very
weak piece of evidence and same has to be
examined with extra care - prosecution fails
to established the charges against the
accused persons beyond the reasonable
doubt - finding of trial court cannot at all be
termed as perverse - hence acquitted is
proper - Appeal dismissed. (Para - 5, 6, 19,
17, 20, 21, 22)

Appeal Dismissed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:-
1238 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
1. Jayamma Vs St. of Karn. (2021 vol. 6 SCC
213),

2. Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan Vs St. of Guj. (2020
vol. 14 SCC 750).

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

1. By means of this appeal filed under
Section 372 Cr.P.C. the Appellant has
challenged the judgement and order dated
29-09-2012 passed by the Additional
Session Judge, Court Number 10, Bijnor,
acquitting the accused /
respondents
Number 2 to 6 of all the charges levelled
against them.

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case
is that on 26/12/2009 the Informant -
Appellant gave a report to the police stating
that he resides in village Khaspura police
station Haldaur and he runs a jewellery
shop in Kasba Chandpur under the name
and style of ''Khaspura Jewellers' along
with his 21 years' old son Deepak Verma.
Both of them used to come daily from
village Khaspura to Chandpur on a
motorcycle. On 26/12/2009, he and his son
had come to the shop at Chandpur. He had
to go with some persons campaigning of
MLC elections. At about 3:00 PM he kept
some articles of jewellery in a steel box and
gave the same to Deepak Verma after
putting it in a cloth bag and asked him to
go home on his motorcycle taking the
goods with him. The Informant went for
the election campaign While his son
Deepak Verma was going on the Hero
Honda Super Splendour motorcycle after
closing
the
shop,
some
unidentified
miscreants fired at and killed his son on
Chandpur - Paijaniya road a short distance
ahead of the railway crossing. The
miscreants robbed the jewellery and ran
away. He came to know from the
neighbours of the shop that Deepak Verma
had started for Khaspura after closing the
shop at about 4:30 PM on his motor cycle,
taking the bag with him.

3. Upon the aforesaid information, a
First Information Report was lodged under
sections 394 and 302 IPC against unknown
miscreants. During investigation on 09-022010, the Informant gave an application to
the District Magistrate, Bijnor stating that a
veterinary hospital was being constructed
in his village Khaspura. It was to be
constructed on 3,900 square meters area,
but the Chief Veterinary Officer and the
Contractor were constructing the same only
on 1,000 square meters land. The land on
which the hospital was being constructed
was the land on which a fair was held. The
Informant had given a complaint regarding
this to the District Magistrate and he had
filed a Public Interest Litigation in the High
Court at Lucknow and the Court had issued
a direction to the Principal Secretary,
Animal Husbandry, to pass suitable orders
on
the
petitioners
representation.
Ultimately his representation was rejected
and since after the murder of his son the
construction of the hospital has gained
peace. The Informant stated that the Chief
Veterinary
Officer,
Bijnor
and
the
contractor who was constructing the
hospital, had got his son killed under a
conspiracy.

4. After investigation a charge sheet
under section 394 302 read with section 35
C was filed on 18-10-2011 against the
accused respondents number 2, 3 and 4 and
on 12-12-2011 another charge sheet under
the aforesaid sections was filed against the
accused respondent number 5.

5. After examining the evidence on
record, the learned court below came to a
conclusion that neither any person had seen
5 All. Raj Kumar Verma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1239
the accused respondents committing the
robbery and murder on the place of the
incident nor any of the articles robbed from
the deceased was recovered from any of the
accused persons. No prior animosity of the
Informant against the accused respondents
could be proved. There is no evidence on
record to establish any connection of the
accused persons with the Chief Veterinary
Officer and the contractors Pradeep Yadav
and Vinod Yadav and there is no evidence
of the Informant's son Deepak Verma
having been
killed
because
of
any
conspiracy of the aforesaid persons.

6. On the basis of the aforesaid
analysis, the learned Court below recorded
a finding that the prosecution could not
prove the charges against the accused
respondents beyond reasonable doubt and,
accordingly, by means of the judgement
and order dated 29-09-2012 it acquitted all
the accused respondents.

7. The Informant Appellant has filed
the instant appeal against the aforesaid
judgment and order dated 29-09-2012.

8. The appeal was listed on 08-022022, on which date no one had appeared
on behalf of the Appellant. The court
passed an order disposing of the application
under Section 378 (3) and the appeal was
directed
to
be
listed
for
admission
peremptorily. Thereafter it was listed on
23-02-2022 on which date again no one
appeared on behalf of the Appellant even in
the revised call and the court passed an
order directing the office to allot a regular
number to the appeal and the case was
ordered to be listed on 25-02-2022
peremptorily.

9. On 25-02-2022 again, no one
appeared for the Appellant even in the
revised call and the court proceeded to
peruse the record with the assistance of the
learned A.G.A. and the judgment was
reserved.

10. We have examined the grounds of
appeal and the lower court record. The
Informant Appellant has challenge the
judgment and order dated 29-09-2012 on
the ground that it is illegal and without
jurisdiction and the trial court has misread,
misinterpreted and mis-appreciated the
evidence on record.

11. In Jayamma v. State of
Karnataka, (2021) 6 SCC 213, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has reiterated the manner in
which the High Court should exercise its
power of scrutiny in an appeal filed against
an order of acquittal, in the following
words: -

"the
power
of
scrutiny
exercisable by the High Court under
Section 378 Cr.P.C. should not be routinely
invoked where the view formed by the trial
court was a "possible view". The judgment
of the trial court cannot be set aside merely
because the High Court finds its own view
more probable, save where the judgment of
the trial court suffers from perversity or the
conclusions drawn by it were impossible if
there was a correct reading and analysis of
the evidence on record. To say it
differently, unless the High Court finds that
there is complete misreading of the
material evidence which has led to
miscarriage of justice, the view taken by
the trial court which can also possibly be a
correct view, need not be interfered with.
This self-restraint doctrine, of course, does
not denude the High Court of its powers to
reappreciate the evidence, including in an
appeal against acquittal and arrive at a
different firm finding of fact."
1240 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

12. We proceed to examine the record
of the case to ascertain as to whether the
view taken by the Court below in the
judgment and order under challenge is a
possible view or whether the findings of the
Court below are perverse and warrant
interference by this Court.

13. The Informant Raj Kumar Verma
- PW - 1 stated in his examination-in-chief,
that after the incident he came to know that
since 4 days before the murder of his son,
he used to see 4 boys standing ahead of the
railway crossing at the place where he has
been killed and those persons are the
accused respondents number 2, 3, 4 and 5.
However,
the
Investigating
Officer
Gurdeep Singh Grewal (PW - 7) has stated
that he took over investigation of the case
on 26/12/2009, i.e. the date on which the
FIR was lodged. The investigation was
transferred from him on 10/1/2010 but
during this period, the Informant did not
name any accused person. After PW - 7,
the investigation was taken over by PW - 8
Raj Kumar Bhardwaj who also stated that
the Informant did not name any person. PW
- 9 Dhan Pal Singh, who took over
investigation after Raj Kumar Bhardwaj,
also
made
a
similar
statement.
On
09/10/2010
the
Informant
gave
an
application to the District Magistrate and in
that also there was no mention of this fact.
This indicates that the statement of PW - 1
naming the accused-respondents 2 to 5 and
alleging that they used to keep on standing
near the place of the incident since four
days before the same, is false.

14. Although in the application dated
09-02-2010 given by Informant Appellant
it was alleged that he had given a complaint
against the Chief Veterinary Officer and
the contractors Pradeep Yadav and Vinod
Yadav and had expressed suspicion that the
aforesaid persons have got his son killed
under a conspiracy, but he did not give any
statement
to
this
effect
during
investigation. No material came to light
during investigation indicating involvement
of the aforesaid persons in the incident and
no charge sheet was submitted against
them. The Informant Appellant gave
evidence to prove this allegation for the
first time in his examination-in-chief,
which is not corroborated by any other
material. Therefore, this allegation of the
Informant / Appellant appears to be without
any basis.

15. The Informant / Appellant PW - 1
has admitted the inquest report, which
mentions that ₹24,411/- cash was recovered
from the deceased's pocket, 2 gold rings
were recovered from his hand and some
documents in his pocket were recovered
from his pocket and the motorcycle and its
key was also recovered lying near the place
of occurrence. Had the dceased been killed
with the intention of committing robbery,
the miscreants would have taken away the
cash, gold rings and motorcycle etc.

16. Although the Informant -
Appellant stated in the report that he had
given some items of jewellery put in a steel
box kept in a cloth bag to the deceased to
be taken home, he has stated in evidence
that the deceased did not leave the shop in
his presence and no witness has stated that
he saw the deceased taking away the items
with him. In absence of any evidence to
this effect, the aforesaid allegation has also
not been proved by the prosecution.

17. Therefore, the learned Court
below has rightly recorded a finding that
from the statement of the Informant
Appellant PW - 1, no allegation against the
accused respondent number 2 is established
5 All. Raj Kumar Verma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1241
and we find that the aforesaid at finding is
not at all perverse.

18. PW - 2 Ram Kishan Verma, a
Brother-in-law of the Informant, stated that
on 26/12/2009 he was going in a bus from
Nehtaur to Chandpur in a bus. While sitting
in the bus he saw some persons assaulting
the deceased. He asked to stop the bus the
bus didn't stop and he heard a gunshot.
When the bus stopped at the railwaycrossing, he got off it and went to the place
of occurrence and he saw that Deepak
Verma was lying dead and the 3 miscreants
runaway
on
a
motorcycle.
Similar
statements have been given by PW - 3
Surendra Verma, who is also a brother-inlaw of the Informant. However, in his
cross-examination PW - 2 has stated that he
saw the incident through a window of the
bus and the bus stopped about half
kilometre away. PW - 2 and PW - 3 have
stated that they sated at the place of the
occurrence for about 20 - 25 minutes. They
left after the police reached there and they
did not make any phone call to the
Informant regarding the incident. The
police took away the dead body and they
did not go with the police. This conduct of
the aforesaid witnesses in not informing the
police or the Informant about having seen
the incident, is highly unnatural and
indicative of the fact that they did not see
the incident send their statement is false.

19. PW - 2 Ram Kishan Verma has
stated that all the accused persons had gone
to him at his home on 25-04-2011 and
stated that they have killed Deepak Verma
by mistake; the police was harassing them
and they requested the PW - 2 to help in
settling the matter, But in his crossexamination, he has shown ignorance about
the date and even the month in which the
accused persons had gone to his home. He
also did not state as to when did he give
information of the visit of the accused
persons to his home to the Informant. From
this, it appears that the statement of the
witness is false.

20. It is settled law that an extrajudicial confession is a very weak piece of
evidence and it has to be examined with
extra care. In Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan
v. State of Gujarat, (2020) 14 SCC 750
the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the
well settled law regarding extra judicial
confessions in the following words: -

"
20. In Sahadevan v. State
of
T.N. [Sahadevan v. State of T.N., (2012) 6
SCC 403 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 146]
referring to the aspect of evidentiary value
of
extra-judicial
confession,
it
was
observed : (SCC p. 410, para 14):

"14. It is a settled principle of
criminal jurisprudence that extra-judicial
confession is a weak piece of evidence.
Wherever the court, upon due appreciation
of the entire prosecution evidence, intends
to base a conviction on an extra-judicial
confession, it must ensure that the same
inspires confidence and is corroborated by
other prosecution evidence. If, however,
the extra-judicial confession suffers from
material
discrepancies
or
inherent
improbabilities and does not appear to be
cogent as per the prosecution version, it
may be difficult for the court to base a
conviction on such a confession. In such
circumstances, the court would be fully
justified in ruling such evidence out of
consideration."

21.
Elaborating
on
the
jurisprudence that has evolved with regard
to extra-judicial confessions, this Court
in Sahadevan [Sahadevan v. State of T.N.,
1242 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2012) 6 SCC 403 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri)
146] had stipulated the principles that are
required to be kept in mind while relying
on extra-judicial confession as evidence.
These principles have been succinctly
mentioned in Jagroop Singh v. State of
Punjab [Jagroop Singh v. State of Punjab,
(2012) 11 SCC 768 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri)
1136] as : (SCC p. 780, para 30)

"30.
Recently,
in Sahadevan v. State
of
T.N. [Sahadevan v. State of T.N., (2012) 6
SCC 403 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 146] , after
referring to the rulings in Sk. Yusuf v. State
of W.B. [Sk. Yusuf v. State of W.B.,
(2011) 11 SCC 754 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri)
620]
and Pancho v. State
of
Haryana [Pancho v. State
of
Haryana,
(2011) 10 SCC 165 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri)
223] , a two-Judge Bench has laid down
that the extra-judicial confession is a weak
evidence by itself and it has to be examined
by the court with greater care and caution;
that it should be made voluntarily and
should be truthful; that it should inspire
confidence;
that
an
extra-judicial
confession attains greater credibility and
evidentiary value if it is supported by a
chain of cogent circumstances and is
further corroborated by other prosecution
evidence;
that
for
an
extra-judicial
confession to be the basis of conviction, it
should not suffer from any material
discrepancies and inherent improbabilities;
and that such statement essentially has to
be proved like any other fact and in
accordance with law."

21. PW 9 Investigating Officer Dhan
Pal Singh has stated that till 16-05-2010,
the name of any accused persons had not
come to light. The name of the accused
persons has been included after about an
year after the incident on the basis of an
alleged extrajudicial confession made by all
the accused persons by going to PW-2 on
25-04-2011 and confessing the incident
allegedly occurred on 26-12-2009, which is
highly unnatural and which was not
corroborated
by
any
other
evidence.
Therefore, we are of the view that the said
extra judicial confession does not appear to
be reliable so as to prove the guilt of the
accused / respondents beyond reasonable
doubt.

22. From a thorough scrutiny of the
statement of witnesses, we are of the
considered opinion that the prosecution
could not establish the guilt of the accused
respondent number 2 to 5 and the findings
of the Court below in this regard do not
suffer from any infirmity and the same are
not at all perverse and do not call for
interference of this Court in exercie of its
appellate jurisdiction.

23. The appeal lacks merits and is
accordingly dismissed at the stage of
admission itself.
----------
(2022)05ILR A1242
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.03.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.
THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Criminal Appeal No.4858 of 2014
(Under section 372 Cr.P.C.)

Nokhe Lal ...Appellant (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri V.K. Gupta, Sri Santosh Kumar Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents: