# Raju @ Raj Kumar & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 8 ILRA 655
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-08-22
- **Case number:** Application U/s 482 No. 37396 of 2012
- **Bench:** Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/raju-raj-kumar-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-52426
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Criminal Law- The Code of Criminal
Procedure-1973-Sections-320
&
482Petition for quashing entire proceedings
under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 307
IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act- this Court can
exercise its power vested under section
482 Cr.P.C. beyond the boundaries of
Section 320 Cr.P.C- Court can invoke its
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. even
in non- compoundable offence and can
quash the proceedings on the basis of
settlement arrived at between the parties
even in the cases of noncompoundable
offences
but
while
exercising
its
jurisdiction this Court must consider the
fact that whether the proceedings relates
to any serious and heinous offences and
whether the crime in question has impact
over the society. (Para 8, 17 & 18)

Result-Petition allowed n the light of the
compromise entered between the parties
and verified by the court concerned. (E-15)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

8 All. Raju @ Raj Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
655
trial is not concluded within a period of 60
days from the first date fixed for taking
evidence in the case, the satisfaction of the
Magistrate has to be recorded while passing
the order releasing such an accused on bail,
however in case the Magistrate directs
otherwise, reasons have to be recorded in
writing. In present facts of the case
Magistrate while rejecting the application
of the applicant has given detailed reasons
for the same.

8. Even otherwise, the bail
application of the applicant has already
been rejected by order dated 22.02.2024,
therefore, the present case amounts to
second bail application, thus the judgments
as relied upon by the counsel for the
applicant are not applicable in present facts
of the case as they are silent about the
situation where first bail application of the
applicant is rejected.

9. In view of the above, the
aforesaid prayer as made by learned
counsel for the applicant for setting aside
the order impugned is refused and the
application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is rejected
accordingly.
----------
(2024) 8 ILRA 655
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.08.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN
MISHRA, J.

Application U/s 482 No. 37396 of 2012
With
Application U/s 482 No. 39186 of 2023

Raju @ Raj Kumar & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents
Counsel for the Applicants:
Ram Raj Pandey

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A.

Criminal Law- The Code of Criminal
Procedure-1973-Sections-320
&
482Petition for quashing entire proceedings
under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 307
IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act- this Court can
exercise its power vested under section
482 Cr.P.C. beyond the boundaries of
Section 320 Cr.P.C- Court can invoke its
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. even
in non- compoundable offence and can
quash the proceedings on the basis of
settlement arrived at between the parties
even in the cases of noncompoundable
offences
but
while
exercising
its
jurisdiction this Court must consider the
fact that whether the proceedings relates
to any serious and heinous offences and
whether the crime in question has impact
over the society. (Para 8, 17 & 18)

Result-Petition allowed n the light of the
compromise entered between the parties
and verified by the court concerned. (E-15)

List of Cases cited:

1. Gian Singh Vs Punjab, reported in (2012)10
SCC 303

2. Nareinder Singh Vs St.of Pun. reported in
(2014) 9 SCC 466

3. Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Bhimsinhbhai
Karmur & ors.Vs St. of Guj.& anr.reported in
[(2017) 9 SCC 641]

4. St.of M. P. Vs Laxmi Narayan & ors. reported
in (2019) 5 SCC 688

5. Arun Singh & ors.Vs St. of U. P. Through its
Secretary & anr. reported in 2020 (3) SCC 736

6. Ram Gopal & anr.Vs St.of M. P. reported in
[2021 0 Supreme (SC) 529]

7. Daxaben Vs The St.of Guj. & ors. 2022
LiveLaw (SC) 642
656 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
8. Dharmraj Vs Shanmugam & ors. decided on
8th September 2022 in Crl. Appeal Nos. 15151516 of 2022

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

1. Heard Sri Ram Raj Pandey, learned
counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for
the State and perused the record.

2. Both applications are arising out
of
same
summoning
order,
same
proceedings and informants are co-accused
in the same criminal case, hence both the
applications are being heard and decided by
a common judgment.

3. By means of instant application
filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. the
applicants have assailed same cognizance
order, summoning order dated 10.03.2010
passed by Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat and
has also prayed for quashing the entire
proceedings of S.T. No.497 of 2010 arising
out of Case Crime No.294 of 2009, under
Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 307 IPC
and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Balainee,
District Baghpat (State Vs. Raju @
Rajkumar and others).

4. According to prosecution
version, the informant- Smt. Rinki @
Guddi, (respondent No.2) lodged the first
information
report
at
Police
Station
concerned on 9.11.2009 with averments
that she was married with Monu S/o Gulab
Giri on 17.6.2009, in which her father
given sufficient gifts and dowry up to his
financial capacity. Unfortunately, after
three months of marriage, in the night of
12/13.9.2009 her husband died. An offer
was made by her father-in-law to her father
to re-marry the informant with his other son
Raju @ Rajkumar due to death of her
husband and her marriage was solemnized
with Raju @ Rajkumar on 18.9.2009.
However, after her marriage with Raju @
Rajkumar, her husband and parents-in-laws
started harassing for non fulfilment of
dowry, she narrated her story to her parents
and her brother when he came to meet her
on 10.01.2009. Her father and family
members tried to convinced the persons not
to harass her but they did not pay any heed
and continued with demand of dowry and
on 8.11.2009 11.00 A.M. when she was in
her parental house, her husband Raju @
Raj Kumar, parents-in-law and brother-inlaw Sonu visited her house and in absence
of her parents and family members, who
had gone to see paddy crops, they abused,
her husband and mother-in-law tried to
commit murder by a rope tied around her
neck, her father-in-law, brother-in-law
assaulted her by a knife and stick, the
witnesses came at the place of occurrence
to hear her cries and saved her. She got her
medical
examination
at
Government
Hospital. The police, after investigation
filed charge sheet against the applicants
under sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 307
IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act.

5. Learned counsel for the
applicants submits that during pendency of
the present applications, under Section 482
Cr.P.C before this Court, parties wished at
compromise and this fact has been brought
to the notice of this Court in compliance of
the order dated 12.4.2024 by this Court, a
compromise deed was filed before the court
concerned i.e. Ist Additional Sessions
Judge, Baghpat and learned court below
has verified the compromise on 11.6.2024
and passed an order in this regard. A
certified coy of this order dated 11.6.2024
has already been filed with the present
application. Therefore, the matter may
kindly be decided on the basis of
8 All. Raju @ Raj Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
657
compromise
and
proceedings
pending
before the court below may be quashed in
the light of the compromise agreed by the
complainant and accused persons. He lastly
submitted that dispute between the parties
being essentially matrimonial in nature and
this is in the interest of justice and family
peace the proceedings of trial court be
quashed accordingly.

6. Per contra, learned AGA
submits that the applicants are prosecuted
in a case under sections 498A, 323, 504,
506, 307 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act
before the Sessions Court and charge under
section 307 IPC of being serious in nature
and proceedings against the applicants
should not be quashed on the basis of
compromise. However, it is admitted fact
that this Court can exercise its power under
Section
482
Cr.P.C
to
scuttle
the
proceeding, on the basis of compromise
even in non-compoundable offences but
where the offences are serious and heinous
in nature which affects the society at large
then this Court should not quash the
proceedings pending against the accused
persons on the basis of compromise arrived
between the parties.

7. From perusal of the first
information report itself appears that
informant had not suffered any serious
injury in the hands of accused persons. She
herself visited the police station to lodge
the FIR.

8. The Apex Court in catena of
judgements held that this Court can
exercise its power vested under section 482
Cr.P.C. beyond the boundaries of Section
320
Cr.P.C.
which
states
that
only
compoundable offence can be compounded
and this Court can even quash the
proceedings relate to non-compoundable
offences on the basis of the compromise
executed between the parties but at the
same time Apex Court cautioned that the
proceeding of serious and heinous offences
which affects the society at large, should
not be quashed on the basis of compromise
executed between the parties.

9. The three Judges Bench of the
Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. Punjab,
reported in (2012)10 SCC 303 discussed
the circumstances very elaborately and held
that this Court can quash the proceedings in
the cases of non-compoundable offences on
the basis of settlement arrived at between
the parties and observed as follow:-

"58. Where the High Court
quashes a criminal proceeding
having regard to the fact that the
dispute between the offender and
the victim has been settled although
the offences are not compoundable,
it does so as in its opinion,
continuation
of
criminal
proceedings will be an exercise in
futility and justice in the case
demands that the dispute between
the parties is put to an end and
peace is restored; securing the ends
of
justice
being
the
ultimate
guiding factor. No doubt, crimes
are acts which have harmful effect
on the public and consist in
wrongdoing
that
seriously
endangers and threatens the wellbeing of the society and it is not
safe to leave the crime-doer only
because he and the victim have
settled the dispute amicably or that
the
victim
has
been
paid
compensation, yet certain crimes
have been made compoundable in
law, with or without the permission
of the court. In respect of serious
658 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
offences
like
murder,
rape,
dacoity, etc., or other offences of
mental depravity under IPC or
offences
of
moral
turpitude
under special statutes, like the
Prevention of Corruption Act or
the offences committed by public
servants while working in that
capacity, the settlement between
the offender and the victim can
have no legal sanction at all.
However, certain offences which
overwhelmingly and predominantly
bear civil flavour having arisen out
of civil, mercantile, commercial,
financial, partnership or such like
transactions or the offences arising
out of matrimony, particularly
relating to dowry, etc. or the family
dispute,
where
the
wrong
is
basically to the victim and the
offender and the victim have settled
all
disputes
between
them
amicably, irrespective of the fact
that such offences have not been
made compoundable, the High
Court may within the framework of
its inherent power, quash the
criminal proceeding or criminal
complaint or FIR if it is satisfied
that on the face of such settlement,
there is hardly any likelihood of the
offender being convicted and by
not
quashing
the
criminal
proceedings,
justice
shall
be
casualty and ends of justice shall be
defeated.
The
above
list
is
illustrative and not exhaustive.
Each case will depend on its own
facts and no hard-and-fast category
can be prescribed".

10. In Nareinder Singh Vs. State
of Punjab reported in (2014) 9 SCC 466,
the Supreme Court held that in case of
heinous and serious offences, which are
generally to be treated as crime against
society, it is the duty of the State to punish
the offender. Hence, even when there is a
settlement, the view of the offender will not
prevail since it is in the interest of society
that the offender should be punished to
deter others from committing a similar
crime.

11. The Three Judges Bench of the
Apex Court in the case of Parbatbhai
Aahir Alias Parbathbhai Bhimsinhbhai
Karmur and Others V. State of Gujrat
and Another reported in [(2017) 9 SCC
641], after discussing its earlier judgements
observed as follows:-

"16. The broad principles
which emerge from the precedents
on the subject, may be summarised
in the following propositions:
16.1. Section 482 preserves
the inherent powers of the High
Court to prevent an abuse of the
process of any court or to secure
the ends of justice. The provision
does not confer new powers. It only
recognises and preserves powers
which inhere in the High Court.
16.2. The invocation of the
jurisdiction of the High Court to
quash a first information report or a
criminal proceeding on the ground
that a settlement has been arrived at
between the offender and the
victim is not the same as the
invocation of jurisdiction for the
purpose
of
compounding
an
offence. While compounding an
offence, the power of the court is
governed by the provisions of
Section 320 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973. The
power to quash under Section 482
8 All. Raju @ Raj Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
659
is attracted even if the offence is
non-compoundable.
16.3. In forming an opinion
whether a criminal proceeding or
complaint should be quashed in
exercise of its jurisdiction under
Section 482, the High Court must
evaluate whether the ends of justice
would justify the exercise of the
inherent power.
16.4. While the inherent
power of the High Court has a wide
ambit and plenitude it has to be
exercised (i) to secure the ends of
justice, or (ii) to prevent an abuse
of the process of any court.
16.5. The decision as to
whether
a
complaint
or
first
information
report
should
be
quashed on the ground that the
offender and victim have settled the
dispute, revolves ultimately on the
facts and circumstances of each
case and no exhaustive elaboration
of principles can be formulated.
16.6. In the exercise of the
power under Section 482 and
while dealing with a plea that the
dispute has been settled, the High
Court must have due regard to
the nature and gravity of the
offence. Heinous and serious
offences
involving
mental
depravity or offences such as
murder, rape and dacoity cannot
appropriately be quashed though
the victim or the family of the
victim have settled the dispute.
Such offences are, truly speaking,
not private in nature but have a
serious impact upon society. The
decision to continue with the trial
in such cases is founded on the
overriding element of public
interest in punishing persons for
serious offences.
16.7. As distinguished from
serious offences, there may be
criminal cases which have an
overwhelming
or
predominant
element of a civil dispute. They
stand on a distinct footing insofar
as the exercise of the inherent
power to quash is concerned.
16.8.
Criminal
cases
involving offences which arise
from
commercial,
financial,
mercantile, partnership or similar
transactions with an essentially
civil flavour may in appropriate
situations fall for quashing where
parties have settled the dispute.
16.9. In such a case, the
High Court may quash the criminal
proceeding if in view of the
compromise
between
the
disputants, the possibility of a
conviction is remote and the
continuation
of
a
criminal
proceeding would cause oppression
and prejudice; and
16.10. There is yet an
exception to the principle set out in
propositions 16.8. and 16.9. above.
Economic offences involving the
financial and economic well-being
of the State have implications
which lie beyond the domain of a
mere
dispute
between
private
disputants. The High Court would
be justified in declining to quash
where the offender is involved in
an activity akin to a financial or
economic fraud or misdemeanor.
The consequences of the act
complained of upon the financial or
economic system will weigh in the
balance."
660 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
12. The Three Judge Bench of the
Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh
V. Laxmi Narayan & Ors. reported in
(2019) 5 SCC 688 laid down the following
principles:-

15. Considering the law on
the point and the other decisions of
this Court on the point, referred to
hereinabove, it is observed and held
as under:
15.1.
That
the
power
conferred under Section 482 of the
Code
to
quash
the
criminal
proceedings
for
the
noncompoundable
offences
under
Section 320 of the Code can be
exercised having overwhelmingly
and
predominantly
the
civil
character, particularly those arising
out of commercial transactions or
arising
out
of
matrimonial
relationship or family disputes and
when the parties have resolved the
entire dispute amongst themselves;
15.2. Such power is not to
be exercised in those prosecutions
which
involved
heinous
and
serious
offences
of
mental
depravity
or
offences
like
murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such
offences are not private in nature
and have a serious impact on
society;

15.3. Similarly, such power
is not to be exercised for the
offences under the special statutes
like the Prevention of Corruption
Act or the offences committed by
public servants while working in
that capacity are not to be quashed
merely on the basis of compromise
between
the
victim
and
the
offender;
15.4.
Offences
under
Section 307 IPC and the Arms
Act, etc. would fall in the
category of heinous and serious
offences and therefore are to be
treated as crime against the
society and not against the
individual alone, and therefore,
the criminal proceedings for the
offence under Section 307 IPC
and/or the Arms Act, etc. which
have a serious impact on the
society cannot be quashed in
exercise of powers under Section
482 of the Code, on the ground
that the parties have resolved
their
entire
dispute
amongst
themselves. However, the High
Court would not rest its decision
merely because there is a mention
of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or
the charge is framed under this
provision. It would be open to the
High Court to examine as to
whether incorporation of Section
307 IPC is there for the sake of it
or the prosecution has collected
sufficient
evidence,
which
if
proved, would lead to framing
the charge under Section 307
IPC. For this purpose, it would
be open to the High Court to go
by the nature of injury sustained,
whether such injury is inflicted
on the vital/delicate parts of the
body, nature of weapons used,
etc. However, such an exercise by
the
High
Court
would
be
permissible
only
after
the
evidence
is
collected
after
investigation and the chargesheet is filed/charge is framed
and/or during the trial. Such
exercise is not permissible when
the
matter
is
still
under
8 All. Raju @ Raj Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
661
investigation.
Therefore,
the
ultimate conclusion in paras 29.6
and 29.7 of the decision of this
Court in Narinder Singh (supra)
should be read harmoniously and
to be read as a whole and in the
circumstances
stated
hereinabove;
15.5. While exercising the
power under Section 482 of the
Code
to
quash
the
criminal
proceedings in respect of noncompoundable offences, which are
private in nature and do not have a
serious impact on society, on the
ground
that
there
is
a
settlement/compromise between the
victim and the offender, the High
Court is required to consider the
antecedents of the accused; the
conduct of the accused, namely,
whether
the
accused
was
absconding
and why he
was
absconding, how he had managed
with the complainant to enter into a
compromise, etc."

13. The Apex Court in the case of
Arun Singh and Others v. State of Uttar
Pradesh Through its Secretary and
Another reported in 2020 (3) SCC 736,
held as under:-

"14. In another decision
in Narinder Singh v. State of
Punjab (supra) it has been
observed that in respect of
offence against the society it is
the duty to punish the offender.
Hence, even where there is a
settlement between the offender
and victim the same shall not
prevail since it is in interests of
the society that offender should
be
punished
which
acts
as
deterrent
for
others
from
committing similar crime. On the
other hand, there may be offences
falling in the category where the
correctional objective of criminal
law would have to be given more
weightage than the theory of
deterrent
punishment.
In
such
cases, the court may be of the
opinion that a settlement between
the parties would lead to better
relations between them and would
resolve a festering private dispute
and thus may exercise power under
Section 482 CrPC for quashing the
proceedings or the complaint or the
FIR as the case may be.

14. The Apex Court in case of
Ram Gopal & Another Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh reported in [2021 0
Supreme (SC) 529] had occasioned to
discuss the issue and observed in paragraph
-14 as follows:-

14. In other words, grave or
serious offences or offences which
involve moral turpitude or have a
harmful effect on the social and
moral fabric of the society or
involve matters concerning public
policy, cannot be construed betwixt
two individuals or groups only, for
such offences have the potential to
impact
the
society
at
large.
Effacing
abominable
offences
through quashing process would
not only send a wrong signal to the
community but may also accord an
undue benefit to unscrupulous
habitual or professional offenders,
who can secure a ''settlement'
through
duress,
threats,
social
boycotts, bribes or other dubious
means. It is well said that "let no
662 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
guilty man escape, if it can be
avoided."

15. The Supreme Court in case of
Daxaben Vs. The State of Gujarat &
others 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 642 observed
as follows:-

"38.
However,
before
exercising its power under Section
482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR,
criminal complaint and/or criminal
proceedings, the High Court, as
observed
above,
has
to
be
circumspect and have due regard to
the nature and gravity of the
offence. Heinous or serious crimes,
which are not private in nature and
have a serious impact on society
cannot be quashed on the basis of a
compromise between the offender
and the complainant and/or the
victim. Crimes like murder, rape,
burglary,
dacoity
and
even
abetment to commit suicide are
neither private nor civil in nature.
Such crimes are against the society.
In
no
circumstances
can
prosecution
be
quashed
on
compromise, when the offence is
serious and grave and falls within
the ambit of crime against society.
39. Orders quashing FIRs
and/or complaints relating to grave
and serious offences only on basis
of
an
agreement
with
the
complainant, would set a dangerous
precedent, where complaints would
be lodged for oblique reasons, with
a view to extract money from the
accused. Furthermore, financially
strong offenders would go scot
free, even in cases of grave and
serious offences such as murder,
rape, brideburning, etc. by buying
off informants/complainants and
settling with them. This would
render otiose provisions such as
Sections 306, 498A, 304-B etc.
incorporated in the IPC as a
deterrent, with a specific social
purpose.
"40.
In
Criminal
Jurisprudence, the position of the
complainant is only that of the
informant. Once an FIR and/or
criminal complaint is lodged and a
criminal case is started by the State,
it becomes a matter between the
State and the accused. The State
has a duty to ensure that law and
order is maintained in society. It is
for the state to prosecute offenders.
In case of grave and serious noncompoundable
offences
which
impact
society,
the
informant
and/or complainant only has the
right of hearing, to the extent of
ensuring that justice is done by
conviction and punishment of the
offender. An informant has no right
in law to withdraw the complaint of
a non-compoundable offence of a
grave,
serious
and/or
heinous
nature, which impacts society."

16. The Supreme Court in the case
of P. Dharmraj Vs. Shanmugam and
others decided on 8th September 2022 in
Crl. Appeal Nos. 1515-1516 of 2022, after
discussing in earlier judgements observed
in para-42 as follows:-

"Thus it is clear from the
march of law that the Court has to
go slow even while exercising
jurisdiction under Section 482
Cr.PC or Article 226 of the
Constitution in the matter of
quashing of criminal proceedings
8 All. Ahrar Ahmad Vs. State of U.P.
663
on the basis of a settlement reached
between the parties, when the
offences are capable of having an
impact
not
merely
on
the
complainant and the accused but
also on others."

17. From the decisions noticed
above, the law as it stands is that although
this Court can invoke its jurisdiction under
Section
482
Cr.P.C.
even
in
non-
compoundable offence and can quash the
proceedings on the basis of settlement
arrived at between the parties even in the
cases of non-compoundable offences but
while exercising its jurisdiction this Court
must consider the fact that whether the
proceedings relates to any serious and
heinous offences and whether the crime in
question has impact over the society.

18. Considering the nature of
offences, nature of dispute, facts and
circumstances of the case, I am of the
opinion that the case against the applicants,
which is pending in Court of Ist Additional
Sessions Judge, Baghpat is to be quashed in
the light of the compromise entered
between the parties and verified by the
court
concerned
vide
order
dated
11.6.2024.

19. Therefore, the applications
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are allowed. The
proceedings of Criminal Case pending
before the Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat
against the applicants as stated above is
hereby quashed on the basis of compromise
entered between the parties.
----------
(2024) 8 ILRA 663
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.08.2024

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J.
THE HON'BLE MOHD. AZHAR HUSAIN
IDRISI, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 4574 of 2014
With
Criminal Appeal No. 4897 of 2014

Ahrar Ahmad ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Rajrshi Gupta, Sri Vinod Singh, Sri Mohd.
Sahiba Alam Khan, Sri Pushpendra Singh, Sri
Dilip Kumar (Sr. Advocate)

Counsel for the Respondent:
Govt. Advocate, Sri Brijesh Sahai, Sri Ganesh
Shankar Dubey, Sri Pratik J. Nagar, Sri Rajul
Bhargva, Sri Sikander B. Kochar, Sudhir Kumar
Agarwal

A. Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860
-Sections 30 & 34- Appellants, Nadeem
Ahmad & Ahrar Ahmad, were charged with
the murder of Asif -Prosecution was able
to prove the guilt of appellant, Nadeem
Ahmad - Nadeem Ahmad was named in the
FIR.
Eyewitnesses
(PW-1
and
PW-2)
testified that Nadeem, using a countrymade pistol, fired at Asif, causing his death.
Both witnesses confirmed that Nadeem,
tried to flee the scene, firing in the air to
escape. Motive was attributed to Nadeem,
due to electoral rivalry with Asif. Licensed
revolver
belonging
to
Nadeem
was
recovered by the police, and ballistic reports
confirmed that the weapon was used in the
crime. Doctor who conducted the postmortem,
confirmed
that
the
injuries
sustained by the deceased were consistent
with the firearm used by Nadeem. No
evidence suggested that two different
firearms were involved in the murder.
Appellate Court upheld the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence passed by
the trial court for accused Nadeem Ahmad.
(Para 33)

B. Criminal Appeal - Murder - Indian Penal
Code, S. 302, S. 34- Acquittal on Benefit of