# Rajnesh (In Jail) v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2022) 11 ILRA 205
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-11-10
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 3411 of 2018
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Ajai Tyagi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajnesh-in-jail-v-state-of-u-p-47803
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 161, 313 & 437(a)-
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 34,
147, 148, 149, 302, 323 & 506, - Arms Act,
1959 - Section - 25 - Criminal Appeal -
Conviction & Sentence - Life imprisonment -
Evaluation of Evidences - trial court fallen into
grave error believing testimonies of PWs whom
were no eye-witnesses and there where major
contradiction in their testimony - held trial court
did not appreciate the evidence in right
perspective - accused are wrongly convicted -
appeal allowed - impugned conviction set aside
- appellants be released forthwith if not wanted
in any other case. (Para - 21, 22, 24, 25)

Appeal allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

11 All. Rajnesh Vs. State of U.P.
205

35. The alternative hypothesis on behalf
of accused that the relatives/villagers may
have administered poison as they have
ultimately succeeded in grabbing their land
has been probablised. We, therefore, find that
an alternative hypothesis does exist in the
facts of the case. Once that be so, the
conviction and sentence of accused appellants
based on the circumstantial evidence would
clearly be impermissible.

36. Upon the evaluation of the evidence
led by the prosecution, we, therefore, come to
the conclusion that the prosecution has failed
to establish the guilt of the accused appellants
beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of
which their conviction could be recorded.

37. The court below has also erred in
relying upon the confessional statement
without evaluating the evidentiary value of
such statement in correct legal perspective.
The provisions of the Evidence Act dealing
with the confessional statements of the
accused have not been examined by the court
below while recording the guilt of the
accused appellants. The judgment and order
of the court below, in such circumstances,
cannot be approved of.

38.

For
the
discussions
and
deliberations held above, we find that the
accused appellants are clearly entitled to
benefit of doubt as the prosecution has not
been able to prove their guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.

39. Consequently, the present jail
appeal succeeds and is allowed. The
judgment and order dated 27.9.2008, passed
by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.
1, Kanpur Dehat in Sessions Trial No. 452 of
2007, State vs. Somwati and another;
whereby the appellants Somwati and Kallu
have been convicted under section 302 r/w 34
IPC in Case Crime No.223/2007, Police
Station Sajeti, District Kanpur Dehat, and
sentenced to life imprisonment, is set aside.
The appellant Kallu shall be released from
Jail, forthwith, unless he is wanted in any
other cases, subject to compliance of Section
437-A Cr.P.C. So far as accused Somwati is
concerned, she has already died during
pendency of the present Jail Appeal and the
appeal at her instance has abated as is clear
from the order dated 9.11.2022.

40. A copy of this order shall be
communicated to the accused appellant in Jail
through
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate/Jail
Superintendent concerned, forthwith.

41. We record our appreciation for the
valuable assistance rendered by learned
Amicus Curiae Mr. Virendra Pratap Yadav.
He shall be entitled to his fee, which we
quantify at Rs.15,000/- to be paid by the High
Court Legal Services Authority.
----------
(2022) 11 ILRA 205
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.11.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE AJAI TYAGI, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 3411 of 2018
&
Criminal Appeal No. 2819 of 2019

Rajnesh ...Accused Appellant (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellant:
Smt. Abhilasha Singh, Sri Ravi Shankar
Tripathi,
Archana
Singh
Jadaun,
Sri
Chandra Jeet Singh, Sri Santosh Kumar
Singh, Sri Ashotosh Yadav
206 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A., Sri Pankaj Satsangi

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 161, 313 & 437(a)-
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 34,
147, 148, 149, 302, 323 & 506, - Arms Act,
1959 - Section - 25 - Criminal Appeal -
Conviction & Sentence - Life imprisonment -
Evaluation of Evidences - trial court fallen into
grave error believing testimonies of PWs whom
were no eye-witnesses and there where major
contradiction in their testimony - held trial court
did not appreciate the evidence in right
perspective - accused are wrongly convicted -
appeal allowed - impugned conviction set aside
- appellants be released forthwith if not wanted
in any other case. (Para - 21, 22, 24, 25)

Appeal allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

1. Criminal Appeal NO. 1826/2003 (Prem & ors.
Vs St. of U.P.) decided on 08.04.2022,

2. Criminal Appeal NO. 429/1983 (Ram Subhag
& anr. Vs St. of U.P.) decided on 09.10.2018,

3. (2004 vol 7 SCC 257),

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi, J.)

1. These two criminal appeals have
been preferred by the appellants against the
judgement and order dated 30.05.2018,
passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court
No.5, Badaun in S.T. No.519 of 2013
(State Vs. Rajnesh and others) arising out
of Case Crime No.334 of 2012, under
Sections 147, 148, 302/149 and 323/149
IPC, Police Station- Rajpura, District-
Sambhal, whereby learned trial court
convicted accused appellants Rajnesh and
Vijay Pal under Section 302 r/w Section 34
IPC
and
sentenced
each
with
life
imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/- and
six months simple imprisonment in case of
default of fine. Trial court also convicted
them under Section 323 r/w Section 34 IPC
and sentenced each six months R.I. and fine
of
Rs.500/-
and
15
days
simple
imprisonment in case of default of fine.
Learned trial court acquitted all the other
accused persons from all the charges
framed against them and also acquitted
accused appellant Vijay Pal of the charge
under Section 25 of Arms Act. Both these
appeals, being connected, are being decided
together.

2. The brief facts of the case as culled
out from the record are that a written report
Ext. Ka.5 is submitted by informant Anek
Pal at police station- Rajpura, District-
Bhimnagar (Sambhal) with the averments
that the in-laws' house of his brother Gauri
Shankar is in Jethpura in the family of Ram
Bhoop and the in-laws' house of accused
Vijay Pal is also in the same village in the
family of Kalyan. There is dispute going on
between the families of in-laws of Gauri
Shankar and Vijay Pal. His brother had
gone to his in-laws' house for diffusing the
dispute. Accused Vijay Pal and his in-laws
took it as their insult and started silent
enmity with them. Further averment is that
that on 12.07.2012 at about 5:00 pm, the
Rajnesh brother-in-law of accused Vijay
Pal, Vijay Pal, Hari Shankar, Sher Pal, Raj
Pal, Ram Khiladi and Mahesh, armed with
weapons, came to the house of his brother
Gauri Shankar and called him. His nephew
Rama Shankar @ Pappu came out of the
house. All the aforesaid accused persons
got him and started beating with lathi and
danda. On his hue and cry, his brother
Gauri Shankar came out of the house then
all the accused got Gauri Shankar and said
to kill him. Then Rajnesh caught hold
Gauri Shankar and Vijay Pal triggered a
fire in the head of Gauri Shankar, who fell
on the ground and died. Accused persons
after seeing them fled away from the spot
11 All. Rajnesh Vs. State of U.P.
207
stating that if anybody gave the evidence he
will be killed.

3. On the basis of aforesaid written
report, a first information report Ext.Ka.3
was registered at Police Station- Rajpura,
District- Bhimnagar as Case Crime No.334
of 2012 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302,
323 and 506 IPC. Station Officer Lakshmi
Shankar
took
up
the
investigation.
Statements of witnesses were recorded u/s
161 of Cr.P.C. I.O. went to the spot and
prepared site-plan. Blood stained and plain
earth were collected from the spot and
recovery memo was prepared. Injured
Rama Shankar was taken to the hospital
where
his
medical
examination
was
conducted and medico legal report was
prepared. Inquest proceedings of the
deceased were conducted and inquest
report was prepared. Post mortem was
conducted on the body of the deceased and
doctor prepared post mortem report. During
the course of investigation, the I.O. arrested
the accused Vijay Pal, on whose pointing
out a country made pistol (Tamancha) was
recovered from his house, in which one
empty cartridge was found in the barrel and
one live cartridge was also recovered.
Tamancha with empty cartridge were sent
to Forensic Science Laboratory and report
was received stating the fact that the empty
cartridge was fired by the aforesaid
Tamancha.

4. After completion of investigation,
charge sheet was submitted by I.O. against
accused Rajnesh, Vijay Pal, Hari Shankar,
Raj Pal, Ram Khiladi and Mahesh under
Section 147, 148, 149, 302, 323, 506 IPC.
Accused Sher Pal, being juvenile, charge
sheet was submitted against him in Juvenile
Justice Board. Another charge sheet was
also submitted against accused Vijay Pal,
under Section 25 Arms Act after obtaining
sanction from the District Magistrate. The
case being triable exclusively by the Court
of Sessions, the Magistrate committed the
case to the Court of Sessions, where the
learned Sessions Judge framed charges
against all the accused persons u/s 147,
148, 302 r/w Section 149 IPC and 323 r/w
Section 149 of IPC. Additional charge u/s
25 Arms Act was framed against accused
Vijay Pal.

5. During the course of trial,
prosecution produced following witnesses:

1. Anek Pal
PW1
2. Rama Shankar
PW2
3. Raju Singh
PW3
4. Dr. A.P. Gautam
PW4
5. Kamal Singh
PW5
6. Dr. S.P. Singh
PW6
7. Lakshmi Shankar
PW7
8. Room Singh Baghel
PW8
9. Lakshmi
Shankar
Sharma
PW9

6. Apart from aforesaid oral evidence,
the
prosecution
has
filed
following
documentary evidence, which was proved
by leading the evidence:

1.
FIR
Ext. Ka-3
2.
FIR
Ext. Ka-5
3.
Written Report
Ext. Ka-1
4.
Recovery memo of
Tamancha, Live &
Empty Cartridge
Ext. Ka10
5.
Recovery memo of
Blood Stained &
Plain Earth
Ext. Ka-9
6.
Injury Report
Ext. Ka-7
7.
P.M. Report
Ext. Ka-2
8.
Vidhi
Vigyan
Prayogshala Report

9.
Panchayatnama
Ext. Ka-
208 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
13
10.
Charge sheet
Ext. Ka12
11.
Charge sheet
Ext. Ka19
12.
Order of District
Magistrate
Ext. Ka20
13.
Site
Plan
with
Index
Ext. Ka-8
14.
Site
Plan
with
Index
Ext. Ka11
15.
Site
Plan
with
Index
Ext. Ka18

7. After completion of prosecution
evidence, statements of accused persons
were recorded u/s 313 of Cr.P.C., in which
they told that false case was made out
against
them
and
false
evidence
is
produced. Accused persons filed one
document, i.e., copy of G.D. in their
defense.

8. Learned trial after hearing the
arguments of both the sides acquitted all
the accused persons of all the charges
except appellants Rajnesh and Vijay Pal,
who were convicted and sentenced u/s 302
r/w Section 34 of IPC and Section 323 r/w
Section 34 of IPC. Appellant Vijay Pal was
acquitted of the charge u/s 25 Arms Act
also. Hence, this appeal.

9. Heard Smt. Abhilasha Singh,
learned counsel for the appellants and
learned AGA for the State as well as
perused the record.

10. Learned counsel for the appellants
first of all submitted that appellants were
having no motive to commit the offence as
charged by prosecution. She submitted that
as per prosecution case, the in-laws' house
of deceased brother Gauri Shankar and inlaws' house of Vijay Pal are in the same
village, where both the family members of
their in-laws were having enmity with each
other. It is also a case of prosecution that
Gauri Shankar had gone to his in-laws'
house to diffuse the enmity but this cannot
be the motive to commit a brutal murder.
Learned counsel also referred the statement
of PW1 Anek Pal, where he has stated in
his cross-examination that there was no
enmity between them and accused. Hence,
there was no motive with the appellants to
commit the murder of deceased Gauri
Shankar. Hence, motive set up by the
prosecution is absolutely unbelievable.

11. Learned counsel for the appellants
submitted that prosecution case cannot be
believed
on
this
ground
alone
that
prosecution has established the case that at
the time of occurrence, appellant Rajnesh
caught hold the deceased and appellant Vijay
Pal triggered the fire in his head. Learned
counsel submitted that in such a position, the
appellant catching hold the deceased could
also sustain the fire arm injuries and his life
could also be in danger but he did not sustain
even a small injury. Moreover, so called
injured eye-witness PW2 Rama Shankar has
stated that Vijay Pal fired from behind which
is contrary to the post mortem report. In post
mortem report it is shown in ante mortem
injuries that gun shot entry wound was in the
left side of the head of the deceased and exit
wound was on the right side. Hence, this
evidence of PW2 that fire was triggered from
behind falsifies his evidence and further it
also falsifies the fact that deceased was
caught hold by appellant Rajnesh because
when bullet exited from right side of the head
it should have been hit the appellant Rajnesh
also, who is said to catch hold the deceased
from right side.

12. Learned counsel for the appellants
further submitted that prosecution case is
11 All. Rajnesh Vs. State of U.P.
209
also falsified with the fact that although a
country made pistol of .315 is said to be
recovered from the house of the appellant
Vijay Pal on his pointing out, which is sent
to Forensic Science Laboratory, from
where report was received that the empty
cartridge, found in the barrel, was fired
with the recovered weapon. But this
recovery was found fake and trial court
acquitted the appellant Vijay Pal of the
charge u/s 25 of Arms Act. When this
recovery of weapon was found false, the
entire case comes into the dark shadow. It
is also submitted that learned trial court has
opined that it is not always necessary that
in each case weapon is required to be
recovered. If weapon is not recovered then
also accused may be convicted for the
offence like murder, if it is otherwise
proved. Learned counsel argued that this
opinion of the learned trial court may be
correct but this is a case where I.O.
recovers the weapon at the instance of
appellant and this recovery is found fake.
This fact is not properly considered by the
trial court.

13. Learned counsel for the appellants
vehemently submitted that prosecution has
produced three witnesses of fact PW1,
PW2 and PW3 and there are several
contradictions in their testimony, which go
to the root of the case and it is proved that
no one is eye-witness. They have not seen
the occurrence at all, even PW1 admits in
his cross-examination that he reached to the
spot after 5 minutes of the occurrence and
learned trial court also did not consider him
eye-witness. PW2 and PW3 were also not
present on the spot, which is proved by
their testimony.

14. Learned counsel for the appellants
relied on the judgements of this High Court
in Criminal Appeal No.1826 of 2003
(Prem and others Vs. State of U.P.)
decided on 8.4.2022 and in Criminal
Appeal No.429 of 1983 (Ram Subhag and
another Vs. State of U.P.) decided on
09.10.2018.

15. Learned AGA opposed the
submissions made by learned counsel for
the appellants and contended that this is a
day light occurrence and there are three
eye-witnesses.
There
is
no
material
contradiction in the evidence of eyewitnesses. Moreover, as per ante mortem
injury in post mortem report, there is one
gun shot entry wound on the left side of the
face of the deceased and exit wound in the
right side of the head. Prosecution case is
also a case of single fire in the head of the
deceased. Hence, ocular evidence is very
well corroborated by the medical evidence.
Learned AGA further contended that if
recovery of weapon is not proved then it
cannot be concluded that appellants have
not committed murder of the deceased
because it is not necessary to find out the
weapon in each case. All the three eyewitnesses are resident of neighborhood.
Hence, their presence on the spot cannot be
doubted. Learned trial court has rightly
convicted
and
sentenced
both
the
appellants. Hence, there is no illegality in
the impugned judgement which requires
any interference by this Court.

16. Prosecution has set up the case
that on the fateful day, both appellants
Rajnesh and Vijay Pal went to the house of
the deceased Gauri Shankar along with five
other accused persons and called him to
come out of the house. Firstly, the son of
the deceased Gauri Shankar, namely, Rama
Shankar came out of the house and all the
accused persons started beating him by
lathi and danda. On his hue and cry, the
deceased Gauri Shankar came out of the
210 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
house and all the accused persons started
beating him and said to kill him. Then and
there, appellant Rajnesh caught hold Gauri
Shankar and Vijay Pal triggered a fire in
his head, due to which Gauri Shankar fell
on the ground and died.

17. Prosecution produced three eyewitnesses of the occurrence, namely PW1-
Anek Pal, PW2- Rama Shankar and PW3-
Raju Singh. PW1- Anek Pal is brother of
the deceased, PW2 Rama Shankar is son of
the deceased and PW3 Raju Singh is
nephew of the deceased. Hence, all the
three eye-witnesses are related witnesses.
Evidence of interested or related witness
cannot be disbelieved on the ground that
they were interested or related witnesses,
but their testimony should be scrutinized
with great care and caution. Keeping this
proposition of law in mind, we have
analyzed the evidence of all the aforesaid
three eye-witnesses meticulously. For the
sake of analyses of evidence, we put the
case in two parts. First part- beating Rama
Shankar by seven named accused persons
and second part- where appellant- Rajnesh
caught hold the deceased and appellant-
Vijay Pal fired at his head. As far as first
part is concerned, as per prosecution case
when Rama Shankar, son of the deceased,
came out of his house, all the seven named
accused persons started beating him by
lathi and danda. This Rama Shankar is
produced by prosecution as PW2, he has
deposed in his examination-in-chief that
when he came out of the house accused
persons gave him beating by lathi, danda
and backside of tamancha. He has deposed
in his cross-examination that his father
(deceased) came out of the house after 20
minutes of his coming out and during this
period, accused persons were beating him.
But the medical report of Rama Shankar
Ext. Ka.7 shows otherwise. In this report
there are only three injuries. Injury No.1 is
contusion with swelling below left knee
joint, injury No.2 is contusion with
swelling at right knee joint and injury No.3
is complaint of pain in body. All injuries
were simple in nature. Hence, there was
just two injuries to Rama Shankar, which
were only contusion. There should have
been serveral injuries if seven persons beat
one person with lathi, danda and backside
of tamancha, that too for a period of 20
minutes or so. It creates doubt with regard
to the presence of PW2 Rama Shankar at
the
place
of
occurrence.
Now
the
meticulous analysis of oral testimony of
PW2 goes to show that in crossexamination, he has deposed that when he
reached at the place of occurrence, Anek
Pal and Raju Singh (PW1 and PW3) were
present there. It means that PW2 reached to
the spot after PW1 Anek Pal and PW1
Anek Pal says that he went to the
occurrence after 5 minutes on hearing the
sound of fire and before him there were lot
of people at the spot and no accused was
present there. The presence of PW1 was
not believed by the trial court also and it
held that PW1 is not the eye-witness and if
PW2 Rama Shankar reached to the spot
after Anek Pal then he also cannot be held
to
be
the
eye-witness.
PW2
has
categorically stated that he saw Raju, Anek
Pal and accused persons but Anek Pal says
that he did not see any accused and reached
to the spot after 5 minutes of the
occurrence. Hence, the presence of PW2
has also become doubtful to the great
extent
at
the
place
of
occurrence.
Moreover, PW2 establishes this case as it
was case of two fires because he says that
there was one empty cartridge lying on the
spot but no such empty cartridge is
recovered by the I.O. on the spot. Apart
from it, if we analyze the testimony of PW2
in the light of medical evidence then also it
11 All. Rajnesh Vs. State of U.P.
211
creates doubt because PW2 has specifically
stated that Rajnesh caught hold his father
from the right side and appellant Vijay Pal
fired from the back side but ante mortem
injury No.2 in post mortem report goes to
show that it was exit wound in the back
side of the head of the deceased. If accused
Vijay Pal would have fired from back side
then there should have been entry wound in
the back side of the head and not the exit
wound as mentioned in post mortem report.
Hence, PW2 Rama Shankar is not eyewitness and now there remains testimony
of PW3 as eye-witness. At one place in
cross-examination, he has deposed that
when he reached to the house of deceased
Gauri Shankar, no villager was there. He
was alone and after that his father Anek Pal
(PW1) also reached there. Further he has
stated that he and his father Anek Pal
(PW1) reached to the place of occurrence
simultaneously. He has specifically stated
that it was no so that he reached earlier than
his father Anek Pal. If it was so then, as
discussed above, the presence of PW1 at
the place of occurrence has been found
false, hence, the presence of PW3 Raju
Singh is also very much doubtful and this
doubt further gets strength from his
statement in further cross-examination
where he has deposed that he heard the
sound of one fire. At that time, he was
talking to his father in his house. It means
that when the fire was opened to the
deceased, PW3 was sitting in his house
with his father and since this is case of one
fire, it can safely be held that PW3 is also
not the eye-witness and he has not seen the
occurrence.

18. This High Court in the cases,
relied on by learned counsel for the
appellants, namely, Prem and others
(supra) and Ram Subhag and another
(supra) has held that mere consistency in
the testimony of the prosecution witnesses
is not the sole test of truth as even
falsehood
can
be
given
an
adroit
appearance of truth, so that truth disappears
and falsehood comes on the surface.
Therefore, what the court has to look at,
and assess, is whether the prosecution
evidence coupled with the surrounding
circumstances has a ring of truth or there
arises
a
strong
suspicion
and
high
probability of false implication of the
accused put on trial.

19. PW4 Dr. A.P. Gautam had
conducted post mortem on the body of the
deceased and following ante mortem
injuries were found:

(i) Fire arm entry wound size 1cm
x 1 cm on left side face, 7 cm anterior from
tragces of left ear.

(ii) Fire arm exit wound size 2.5
cm x 2 cm on right side occipital region of
head.

20. Hence, it was a case of one fire
only and as discussed above, PW1, PW2
and PW3 are proved not to be the eyewitness of the occurrence and their
testimony cannot be relied on, but the
learned trial court although mentioned in
the judgement the material contradictions
in their testimony but based conviction of
the appellants mainly on the basis of their
statements made in examination-in-chief
only. Presence of PW1 at the place of
occurrence is not relied upon by the trail
court, which is correct finding but presence
of PW2 and PW3 is also not proved at the
spot.
There
are
several
material
contradictions in their testimony, denying
their presence, which go to root of the
matter and shatter the entire prosecution
case. Since, the prosecution has produced
three eye-witnesses and the presence of all
212 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
these eye-witnesses is very much doubtful
rather it is proved that they were not
present at the place of occurrence and have
not seen any incident as alleged by
prosecution, there emerges strong suspicion
and high probability of false implication of
the accused-appellants on the basis of
enmity between the families of in-laws of
deceased and appellant Vijay Pal. False
implication of appellant- Rajnesh is also
due to enmity. This enmity is explained by
PW2.

21. After sifting the evidence as
above, we are of the considered opinion
that learned trial court has fallen into grave
error in believing the testimony of PW2
and PW3 because it is well proved that they
were not the as eye-witness. Learned trial
court has not taken into consideration that
material contradictions in their testimony
and these contradictions are so major that
they go to the very root of the prosecution
case and shatter it.

22. Hence, we are of the considered
view that learned trial court did not
appreciate the evidence in right perspective
and misread it. Appellants- Vijay and
Rajnesh are wrongly convicted by trial
court under Section 302 r/w Section 34 IPC
and Section 323 r/w Section 34 IPC.
Hence, we upturn the finding of learned
trial court convicting the appellants and the
appeal is liable to be allowed.

23. Accordingly, both the appeals are
allowed.

24. Impugned judgement is set aside.
Conviction and sentence of both the
appellants under Section 302 r/w Section
34 IPC and Section 323 r/w Section 34 IPC
is hereby set aside and appellants are
acquitted of the aforesaid charges.

25.

The
accused-appellants
be
released from jail forthwith if not wanted in
any other case.

26. Record and proceedings be sent
back to the court below.

27. In Criminal Appeal No. 2819 of
2019 Smt. Abhilasha Singh, Advocate was
appointed as Amicus Curiae as learned
counsel for the appellant did not appear.
She
will
be
paid
Rs.15,000/-
as
remuneration by the High Court Legal
Services Committee.
----------
(2022) 11 ILRA 212
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.10.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA,
J.

Criminal Appeal No. 3856 of 2015

Munna @ Parvez
 ...Applicant/ Appellant (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Mahesh Prasad Yadav, Sri Brijesh Sahai,
Sri Mohammad Asif, Sri Ram Jatan Yadav,
Sri Arun Kumar Srivastava, Sri Girish Kumar
Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 161 & 313 - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Sections 34, 299, 300, 302,
304 part-I, 307, 354 Ka & 354-Gha -
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections- 32 &