# Ram Chandra v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2024) 2 ILRA 1392
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-02-22
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 2197 of 2017
- **Bench:** Rajan Roy, Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-chandra-v-state-of-u-p-51259
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 302 & 201 - Appellant challenged
conviction under Section 302 IPC and sentence
of life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.25,000/-
(with 1 year's additional rigorous imprisonment
in default) by Additional Sessions Judge/Special
Judge, Essential Commodities Act, Barabanki,
dated 30.11.2017, in Sessions Trial No. 269 of

## Text

1392 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

9. Learned counsel for appellant has
further submitted that since the appellant
was surety of accused Radhey Shayam in
Sessions Trial No. 114/97, arising out of
Case Crime No. 1497/97 : State Vs.
Radhey Shyam and others, under Sections
147, 148, 149 and 302 I.P.C., Police Station
Kotwali Ayodhya, Faizabad and accused
Radhey Shyam appeared and surrendered
before the court concerned on 24.07.2008 and
he is facing trial, therefore, the sentence of
surety appellant Dharmendra Kumar Singh be
reduced to the period already undergone by
him.

10. Learned A.G.A. submits that it was
the duty of the surety to ensure that accused was
appearing in the Court on each and every date.
Sureties have failed to ensure it because
accused did not appear in Court, hence the court
below had no option but to pass the impugned
orders, thus the learned court below had rightly
passed the impugned orders dated 18.08.2008
and 17.03.2008, but did not dispute this fact that
appellant was surety of accused Radhey
Shayam in Sessions Trial No. 114/97, arising
out of Case Crime No. 1497/97 : State Vs.
Radhey Shyam and others, under Sections 147,
148, 149 and 302 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali
Ayodhya, Faizabad and accused Radhey Shyam
appeared and surrendered before the court
concerned, therefore, the sentence of surety
appellant Dharmendra Kumar Singh may be
reduced to the period already undergone by
him.

11. After considering the arguments
advanced by learned counsel for the parties and
after perusal of record, this Court finds that the
appellant is the surety of accused Radheshyam,
when accused Radheshyam did not appear
before the court, the court below had no option
but to pass the impugned orders, thus the
learned court below had rightly passed the
impugned orders dated 18.08.2008 and
17.03.2008, which do not require any
interference by this Court, thus the conviction
of the appellant is maintained.

So far as the sentence of the appellant is
concerned, as the accused Radhey Shyam had
appeared and surrendered before the
court concerned and the appellant had
already undergone sentence for eleven
days in compliance of the order dated
18.08.2008 and 17.03.2008 passed by
the court below, considering the entire
facts and circumstances of the case, in
the interest of justice, this Court is of
the view that the sentence is modified
for
the
period
which
is
already
undergone by the appellant.

12. With the above modification, the
instant criminal appeal is partly allowed.

13. A certified copy of the order be also
sent to the court concerned for compliance.

14. Office is directed to communicate this
order to the court concerned for necessary
compliance.

15. Lower court record, if any, shall also
be sent back to the district court concerned.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 1392
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 22.02.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.
THE HON'BLE AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA-I, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 2197 of 2017

Ram Chandra ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent
2 All. Ram Chandra Vs. State of U.P.
1393
Counsel for the Appellant:
Surendra Kumar, Nisha Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 302 & 201 - Appellant challenged
conviction under Section 302 IPC and sentence
of life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.25,000/-
(with 1 year's additional rigorous imprisonment
in default) by Additional Sessions Judge/Special
Judge, Essential Commodities Act, Barabanki,
dated 30.11.2017, in Sessions Trial No. 269 of
2015. Court held: (1) Prosecution failed to prove
guilt
beyond
reasonable
doubt
due
to
inconsistencies
in
witness
testimonies,
particularly regarding the depth of water at the
alleged drowning site and the deceased's
clothing. (2) P.W.-1's testimony unreliable as FIR
was not of her own volition, and no independent
witnesses supported the prosecution's claim of
appellant's apprehension at the scene. (3) Lack
of evidence on water depth at site and
discrepancies
in
clothing
cast
doubt
on
prosecution's story (Bhagwan Sahai Vs St. of
Raj., (2010) 9 SCC 543; Upendra Pradhan Vs St.
of Orissa, (2015) 11 SCC 124). (4) Suspicion
cannot substitute proof; benefit of doubt
granted to appellant. Conviction under Section
302 IPC set aside; appellant acquitted; appeal
allowed. (Paras 25-29)

Appeal Allowed.

Case Law Cited:

1. Bhagwan Sahai Vs St. of Raj., (2010) 9 SCC
543 (Para 26)

2. Upendra Pradhan Vs St. of Orissa, (2015) 11
SCC 124 (Para 27)

3. Narendra Singh Vs St. of M.P., (2004) 10 SCC
699 (Para 27)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajai Kumar
Srivastava-I, J.)

1. Heard Ms. Nisha Srivastava,
learned counsel for the appellant, Sri
Rajdeep Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State
and perused entire record.

2. Under challenge in this criminal
appeal is the impugned judgment and order
dated 30.11.2017 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge,
Essential Commodities Act, Barabanki in
Sessions Trial No.269 of 2015 titled as
State of U.P. vs. Ram Chandra arising out
of Crime No.104 of 2015, under Sections
302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code1,
Police
Station
Haidergarh,
District
Barabanki whereby the appellant, Ram
Chandra has been convicted and sentenced
to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of
Rs.25,000/- for the offence under Section
302 I.P.C. and in default of payment of
fine, he has further been directed to
undergo one year's additional rigorous
imprisonment. However, he has been
acquitted of charge under Section 201
I.P.C.

3. The case of the prosecution in
nutshell is that a written report was
submitted by the first informant, Poonam
Kumari at Police Station Haiderganj,
District Barabanki stating therein that on
14.05.2015, the first informant along with
her husband, Premchandra was returning to
their village from her brother-in law's
house by a D.C.M. When they alighted
from D.C.M. at about 09:00 PM near their
Village, Narauli, a person, whom they
could not recognize, started staring at the
first informant and thereafter, he pounced
upon the first informant and her husband.
When the husband of the first informant
tried to defend his wife/ first informant, the
unknown person grabbed her husband with
an intention to kill him and dragged him
into a nearby pond and tried to strangulate
the first informant's husband. When the
first informant raised alarm, many villagers
1394 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
reached the place of occurrence. The
villagers saved her husband and also
apprehended
that
person.
The
first
informant's husband, being in a serious
condition, was taken to the Government
Hospital, Haidergarh, where her husband
was declared dead. The first informant later
came to know the name of the accused/
murderer of her husband, who is the
present accused/ appellant herein.

4. The inquest proceeding started on
15.05.2015 at 06:30 AM and got concluded
on 15.05.2015 at 07:30 AM. The inquest
report has been duly proved by P.W.-4,
Batjor Singh as Ex. Ka-2.

5. According to postmortem report of
the deceased, Ex. Ka-10, which has been
proved by P.W.-6, Dr. Saroj Kumar, the
cause of death of the deceased is reported
to be asphyxia as a result of antemortem
drowning.

6. On the basis of aforesaid written
report, Ex. Ka-1 submitted by the first
informant, Poonam Kumari, the first
information report, Ex. Ka-8 came to be
lodged against the appellant on 14.05.2015
at 10:30 PM for the offence under Section
302 I.P.C.

7. The Investigating Officer recorded
the statements of the witnesses under
Section 161 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure2. He visited the place of
occurrence and prepared a site plan, Ex.
Ka-11 thereof.

8. Upon conclusion of investigation,
the Investigating Officer submitted a charge
sheet, Ex. Ka-12 against the accused/
appellant for the offences under Sections
302 and 201 I.P.C.

9. Charges for the offences under
Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. were framed
against the present accused/ appellant, who
denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

10. In order to bring home guilt of the
accused/ appellant, the prosecution has
examined Poonam Kumari, who is the first
informant, as PW-1, Smt. Tapeshwari
Mishra as PW-2, Ms. Khushbu as PW-3,
S.I. Batjor Singh as PW-4, Head Constable
Ramrudra Tiwari, who is the chik writer, as
PW-5, Dr. Saroj Kumar as PW-6 and the
Investigating
Officer,
Inspector
Chandrashekhar Singh as PW-7.

11. The appellant in his statement
recorded under Section Section 313 Cr.P.C.
has stated the prosecution story to be false.
He has also stated to have been falsely
implicated in this case and he claimed to be
innocent.

12. No evidence in defence was
adduced by the accused/ appellant before
the learned trial court.

13. The learned trial court, after
appreciating the evidence available on
record
adduced
by
the
prosecution,
convicted and sentenced the accused/
appellant as stated herein above.

14. Aggrieved by the impugned
judgment and order dated 30.11.2017, the
accused/ appellant has preferred the instant
criminal appeal.

15. Learned counsel for the appellant
has submitted that the appellant is innocent,
who has been falsely implicated in this
case. The finding of guilt of the appellant
recorded by the learned trial court is against
2 All. Ram Chandra Vs. State of U.P.
1395
the weight of evidence, therefore, the same
cannot be sustained.

16. Her further submission is that the
prosecution story is unbelievable. The
prosecution has been unable to prove that
the incident occurred at the place, which
has been shown in the site plan, Ex. Ka-11.
The prosecution has not brought forth true
prosecution story. The appellant has been
falsely implicated on the basis of false and
fabricated facts. The prosecution witnesses
did
not
prove
and
corroborate
the
prosecution
case.
The
statements
of
witnesses of fact have not been considered
in their right perspective. The appellant
came to be convicted by the impugned
judgment and order dated 30.11.2017,
which is not based on due analysis of
evidence available before the learned trial
court. She has also contended that the
learned trial court failed to appreciate the
fact that there were major contradictions in
the testimony of P.W.-1, Poonam Kumari,
which renders
her testimony
wholly
unreliable.

17. Learned counsel for the appellant
has, thus, prayed to set aside the impugned
judgment and order dated 30.11.2017 and
to acquit the appellant accordingly.

18. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the
State has submitted that the accused/
appellant rightly came to be convicted vide
impugned judgment and order dated
30.11.2017, which is well discussed and
reasoned. The appellant was named in the
first information report. He has also
contended that minor contradictions in the
statements of the prosecution witnesses are
very natural having regard to the fact that
they
come
from
rural
background,
therefore, any minor contradiction in their
testimonies cannot be stressed too far.
Accordingly, interference by this Court is
neither warranted nor is justified. He,
accordingly, prays for dismissal of the
instant criminal appeal.

19. At the outset, it is relevant to
mention that S.I. Batjor Singh has been
examined as P.W.-4, who has proved the
panchayatnama as Ex. Ka-2 and letter to
CMO as Ex. Ka-3. This witness has also
proved the letter to R.I. as Ex. Ka-4 and
photo of the corpse as Ex. Ka-5. He has
also proved challan of the deceased as Ext.
Ka-6 and specimen seal as Ext. Ka-7. Head
Constable Ramrudra Tiwari has been
examined as P.W.-5, who has proved the
first informant report as Ext. Ka-8. He has
also proved G.D. as Ext. Ka-9. Dr. Saroj
Kumar has been examined as P.W.-6, who
has conducted the postmortem of the
deceased and he has reported the cause of
death of the deceased to be forceful
drowning. He has proved the postmortem
report of the deceased as Ex. Ka-10. The
Investigating
Officer,
Inspector
Chandrashekhar Singh has been examined
as
P.W.-7.
He has stated
that the
panchayatnama
proceedings
were
completed under his supervision by P.W.-4,
S.I. Batjor Singh. He has proved the site
plan as Ext. Ka-11 and the charge sheet as
Ex. Ka-12.

20. Having heard the learned counsel
for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the
State and upon perusal of record, it
transpires that the first informant, Poonam
Kumari, wife of the deceased, has been
examined as P.W.-1. She has proved the
written report as Ex. Ka-1. According to the
written report, Ex. Ka-1, on 14.05.2015,
she was returning to her home from the
house of her brother-in-law (jeth), Lallan
from Lucknow. They came to Haidergarh
and thereafter, they boarded a DCM for her
1396 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
village. At about 09:00 PM, they alighted
from DCM. When they were about to pay
the fare, the appellant rushed towards the
first informant to grab her. Her husband/
deceased,
Prem
Chandra
intervened.
Whereupon the appellant caught hold of the
deceased by his neck. Thereafter, the
appellant while pressing the neck of her
husband, the deceased, brought him down
in a nearby pond. This witness made hue
and cry, which led to other persons to rush
to the spot. The appellant was apprehended
on the spot and her husband was taken to
Haidergarh District Hospital where he was
declared dead. P.W.-2, Smt. Tapeshwari
Mishra, in her testimony, has stated that on
the date of incident, she, upon hearing of
screams, rushed to the spot. She was
carrying a wooden stick (danda) and a
torch with her. She saw that the appellant
had caught hold of deceased's neck and had
pounced upon the deceased. The other
persons of the vicinity also came to the
spot. The man, who had pressed the neck of
the deceased, revealed his name as Ram
Chandra Rawat R/o Alpi ka Purwa, Police
Station Subeha, District Barabanki.

21. A careful perusal of testimony of
P.W.-2, Smt. Tapeshwari Mishra reveals
that she has very categorically stated that
on the date of incident, upon hearing
screams, she along with wife of Ram
Kumar only had reached at the spot. No
other persons had reached there. She has
also stated that it was a dark night and there
was no source of light. She has also stated
the fact that the place, where the deceased,
Prem Chandra allegedly drowned because
of the appellant pressing his neck in the
water, in fact, had no water there. P.W.-3,
Ms. Khushbu is a child witness, who has
also stated to have seen the incident and
has stated that on 14.05.2019 at about
09:00 PM, she also heard screams and
when she reached at the spot, she saw that
his uncle's neck was being pressed by a
man, who, on being asked, revealed his
name as Ram Chandra R/o Alpi ka Purwa.

22. If we scrutinize the testimony of
P.W.-6, Dr. Saroj Kumar, we find that he
had conducted the postmortem of the
deceased and has proved the postmortem
report
as
Ex.
Ka-10. According
to
postmortem report, Ex. Ka-10 of the
deceased, the cause of death of the
deceased is reported to be asphyxia as a
result of ante-mortem drowning. If we
peruse the site plan, Ex. Ka-11, we find that
the place, where according to prosecution
story, the appellant killed the deceased by
pressing him in a water body, is not a pond
or a regular water body. The site plan does
not reveal as to how deep water was there
at place 'C' in the site plan, Ex. Ka-11
where the deceased, Prem Chandra was
done to death by pressing his neck into
water. It needs to be stated that death by
drowning could occur only when it is
established that the place, where the
deceased, Prem Chandra is said to have
been killed by drowning, had sufficient
water for doing so.

23. We have been able to notice that
P.W.-1, Poonam Kumari has stated, in her
testimony, that while her husband, the
deceased, was done to death, he was
wearing a black pant, black shirt and a vest.
P.W.-2, Smt. Tapeshwari Mishra has also
stated that the deceased was wearing only
an underwear. She has stated the fact that
she had taken off shirt, pant and vest of the
deceased at the place of occurrence for the
first time in the court during trial, which
appears to us as an effort to improve the
prosecution story to lend support to
prosecution's case. Even P.W.-3, Ms.
Khushbu, who is a child witness, has stated
2 All. Ram Chandra Vs. State of U.P.
1397
that the deceased had put on a pant and
shirt when he left his home. However, a
perusal of postmortem report, Ex. Ka-10
reveals that the deceased was wearing only
an underwear. It is not the case of the
prosecution that the appellant had disrobed
the deceased while they were in scuffle.

24. In this regard, we have carefully
perused
the
entire
record
and
are
constrained to say that the shirt, pant and
vest, which were allegedly worn by the
deceased once he left the home, were
neither recovered by the Investigating
Officer near the alleged place of occurrence
nor the same were handed over by P.W.-2,
Smt.
Tapeshwari
Mishra
to
the
Investigating Officer, therefore, it does not
rule out possibility of the fact that the
prosecution has not come up with the true
chronology of the incident; rather the
prosecution has tried to shield some facts.

25. We say so because in want of any
evidence to suggest as to what was the
depth of water at point 'C' in the site plan,
Ex. Ka-11, which is shown as the place
where the deceased was done to death by
the appellant by pressing his neck into
water, it is difficult to comprehend as to
how and in what manner, the deceased was
killed. The fact that the deceased was found
wearing only underwear also casts doubt on
the prosecution story. Admittedly, on the
date of alleged incident, it was a dark night.
The time of occurrence is stated to be about
09:00 PM in the night. P.W.-1, Poonam
Kumari, who is stated to be an eye witness,
has categorically stated in her testimony
that she was informed by the police
personnel that the appellant has been made
an accused, only thereafter, she put her
signature on the written report, Ex. Ka-1.
She has also stated that the written report
was scribed by the police personnel and
only thereafter,
the
police
personnel
obtained her signature on it. This clearly
shows that the written report was not an
outcome of her own volition. She has very
categorically stated that she does not know
whether real culprit was apprehended on
the spot or some other person. It is not out
of place to mention that it is the
prosecution's own case that the first
informant was not acquainted with the
appellant and she did not know his name
prior to the date of incident. In want of
depth of water at point 'C' as shown in the
site plan, Ex. Ka-11, it is difficult to
determine as to whether there was
sufficient water where the deceased could
have been done to death in a manner as
shown in the postmortem report. We say so
because in a given case, such lapse of not
mentioning deft of water at place 'C' would
have been considered as such a trivial lapse
on the part of the Investigating Officer,
which could not have lent any benefit to the
appellant. However, as aforesaid fact goes
to the very root of the matter and it makes
the entire prosecution story improbable,
therefore, it cannot also be ruled out that
the prosecution did not disclose the real
genesis and correct situs of the place of
occurrence. According to written report,
Ex. Ka-1, when the first informant, P.W.-1,
Poonam Kumari raised alarm, many
villagers of the vicinity had reached the
sopt and according to recital made in the
written report, Ex. Ka-1, they apprehended
the appellant. However, no such witness
has been examined by the prosecution.
Therefore, we are of the considered view
that the prosecution has miserably failed to
establish the fact that on 14.05.2015, the
appellant, who belonged to a different
village
and,
who,
according
to
prosecution's own story, had no prior
enmity with the deceased or the first
informant, P.W.-1, Smt. Poonam Kumari,
1398 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
had killed the deceased only because he
was apprehended near the alleged place of
occurrence.

26. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in
Bhagwan Sahai and another vs. State of
Rajasthan3 in paragraph No.8 has held as
under :-

"8.The aforesaid view of the High
Court is devoid of legal merits. Once the
Court came to a finding that the
prosecution has suppressed the genesis and
origin of the occurrence and also failed to
explain the injuries on the person of the
accused including death of father of the
appellants, the only possible and probable
course left open was to grant benefit of
doubt to the appellants. The appellants can
legitimately claim right to use force once
they saw their parents being assaulted and
when actually it has been shown that due to
such assault and injury their father
subsequently died. In the given facts,
adverse inference must be drawn against
the prosecution for not offering any
explanation much less a plausible one.
Drawing of such adverse inference is given
a go-by in the case of free fight mainly
because the occurrence in that case may
take place at different spots and in such a
manner that a witness may not reasonably
be expected to see and therefore explain the
injuries sustained by the defence party. This
is not the factual situation in the present
case."

27. We are oblivious of the fact that in
the case at hand, a young man has died, but
the fact remains that it is the duty of
prosecution to prove its case against the
accused-appellant
beyond
reasonable
doubt. Suspicion, howsoever grave cannot
take place of a proof. In this regard,
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Upendra
Pradhan vs. State of Orissa4 in paragraph
No.14 has held as under:-

"14. Taking the first question for
consideration, we are of the view that in
case there are two views which can be
culled out from the perusal of evidence and
application of law, the view which favours
the accused should be taken. It has been
recognised as a human right by this Court.
In Narendra Singh v. State of M.P., [(2004)
10 SCC 699 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1893], this
Court has recognised presumption of
innocence as a human right and has gone
on to say that: (SCC pp. 708 & 709, paras
30-31 & 33)

"30. It is now well settled that benefit
of doubt belonged to the accused. It is
further trite that suspicion, however grave
may be, cannot take place of a proof. It is
equally well settled that there is a long
distance between 'may be' and 'must be'.

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx"

(emphasis supplied by us)

28. Thus, in view of what has been
discussed above, we are constrained to hold
that
the
learned
trial
court,
while
appreciating evidence adduced by the
prosecution to bring home guilt of the
appellant, lost sight of aforesaid facts and
circumstances of this case. Therefore, we
find the impugned judgment and order
dated 30.11.2017 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge,
Essential Commodities Act, Barabanki
unsustainable. We are of the considered
view that the appellant deserves to be given
benefit of doubt.

29. The upshot of aforesaid discussion
is that the impugned judgment and order
dated 30.11.2017 whereby the appellant,
2 All. Babu Lal Vs. State of U.P.
1399
Ram Chandra came to be convicted for the
offence under Section 302 I.P.C., is not
sustainable and deserves to be set aside,
which is, accordingly, set aside. The
appellant is acquitted of charge under
Section 302 I.P.C. Consequently, the
present criminal appeal is allowed.

30. The accused/ appellant, Ram
Chandra is in jail. Let the accused/
appellant be released from jail forthwith, if
he is not wanted in any other case.

31. The appellant is directed to file a
personal bond and two sureties in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the court
concerned in compliance of Section 437-A
Cr.P.C. within eight weeks from today.

32. Let the record of trial court along
with a copy of this order be transmitted
forthwith to the
learned
trial
court
concerned for necessary information and
compliance.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 1399
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 02.02.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 2235 of 2008

Babu Lal ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Madan Mohan Pandey

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 323, 504, 506 & 34 - Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(1)(x) -
Appellants challenged conviction under Section
323/34 IPC and fine of Rs.300/- each (with 2
months' imprisonment in default) by Additional
Special
Sessions
Judge/S.C.
&
S.T.
Act,
Sultanpur, dated 23.07.2008, in Sessions Trial
No. 9/2007. Court held: (1) Prosecution failed to
prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; injuries on
P.W.-1 and P.W.-3 caused by friction, not
lathi/danda as alleged, and appeared old per
medical evidence. (2) Witnesses (P.W.-1, P.W.-3)
were interested (close relatives), and P.W.-2's
testimony
contradictory,
casting
doubt
on
presence and incident. (3) Trial court's reliance
on interested witnesses without proper scrutiny
erroneous; principle of falsus in uno falsus in
omnibus inapplicable, but evidence lacked
credibility (Khujji @ Surendra Tiwari Vs St. of
M.P., AIR 1991 SC 1853; Sucha Singh Vs St. of
Punj., AIR 2003 SC 3617; Paramjeet Singh Vs
St. of Uttarakhand, AIR 2011 SC 200). (4) Delay
in FIR and lack of corroborative evidence further
weakened prosecution case. Conviction set
aside; appellants acquitted; appeal allowed.
(Paras 17-25)

Appeal Allowed.

Case Law Cited:

1. Khujji @ Surendra Tiwari Vs St. of M.P., AIR
1991 SC 1853 (Para 18)

2. Sucha Singh Vs St. of Punj., AIR 2003 SC
3617 (Para 19)

3. Paramjeet Singh Vs St. of Uttarakhand, AIR
2011 SC 200 (Para 20)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.)

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard learned Counsel for the
parties.

3. The present Criminal Appeal under
Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. has been filed
against the judgment and order dated