# Ram Gopal v. State Of U.P

- **Citation:** (2016) 8 ILRA 24
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-08-23
- **Bench:** Arvind Kumar Tripathi, Mukhtar Ahmad
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-gopal-v-state-of-u-p-44240
- **Pages:** 9

## Text

24 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(2016) 8 ILRA 24
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.08.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARVIND KUMAR TRIPATHI, J.
THE HON'BLE MUKHTAR AHMAD, J.

Criminal Appeal No.- 2776 Of 1983

Ram Gopal ...Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for Appellant:
Tej Ram

Counsel for Respondent:
Dga

Held

The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; where the evidence is doubtful or unreliable,
the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt.
If the presence of eyewitnesses is doubtful and their version is inconsistent with medical or surrounding
circumstances, their testimony cannot be safely relied upon.
Non-examination of material witnesses (e.g., eyewitnesses present at the scene or crucial persons like the
scribe of FIR) weakens the prosecution case.
Where the FIR itself becomes doubtful (e.g., scribe not supporting prosecution or stating it was dictated by
police), the entire prosecution story becomes suspect.
Delay in recording statements of witnesses and absence of explanation for such delay creates serious doubt
about the prosecution version.
Failure to recover alleged weapons of offence and absence of corroborative evidence further weakens the
prosecution case.
Where conduct of witnesses appears unnatural (e.g., failure to intervene or save victim), their testimony
becomes unreliable.
If the prosecution story is inconsistent with medical evidence or surrounding facts, it cannot be accepted.
In such circumstances, conviction cannot be sustained, and the accused must be acquitted giving benefit of
doubt.
Accordingly, the conviction under Section 302/34 IPC was set aside and the appeal was allowed.

CASE LAW CITED
None

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arvind K.Tripathi, J.)
8 All. Ram Gopal Vs State Of U.P.
25
1) Instant Criminal Appeal has been preferred challenging the impugned order of
conviction and sentence dated 26.9.1983 passed by learned VIIth Additional District & Sessions
Judge, Bareilly in S.T.No.366/1981 under section 302 read with section 34 of I.P.C. arising out of
Case Crime No.389/1981, Police Station Baradari, District Bareilly.

2) The appeal was admitted on 17.11.1983 and the prayer for bail of the appellants was
allowed on the same day. As per office report, Ram Gopal, the appellant no.1 has died and the
appeal in respect of him stands abated vide order dated 5.1.2016.

3) There is only sole surviving appellant Hasia alias Hansia r/o Kalibari, PS.Baradari,
District Bareilly. None appeared on her behalf. Warrant was issued and she was brought before this
Court in custody on 11.7.2016. Since she was not in a position to engage any counsel, hence on her
request Shri Harish Chandra Tiwari, Advocate was appointed to appear as 'Amicus Curiae' on her
behalf.

4) Shri H.C.Tiwari, learned counsel (Amicus Curiae) appeared for the appellant, Shri
Virendra Singh Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. We heard the arguments of counsel for
the parties and judgement was reserved on 20.7.2016.

5) The brief facts of the prosecution story is that the First Information Report was lodged
by Mohan Lal s/o Baburam, Mohalla Siklapur, PS.Baradari, District Bareilly written by one
Bhagwat Saran s/o Ram Charan, Mohalla Azamnagar on 21.6.1981 which was registered as Case
Crime No.389/1981 under section 307 I.P.C. at 7.30 P.M. The informant Mohan Lal was residing
in Mohalla Siklapur, PS.Baradari, Bareilly. His sister Jasoda Devi (deceased) was married to the
appellant no.1 Ram Gopal s/o Narain, Mohalla Kali Bari. Thereafter his brother-in-law Ram Gopal
married to another lady namely Hasia alias Hansia (appellant no.2). Since then Ram Gopal was in
search of opportunity to kill her sister as he wanted to keep only Hansia alone with him in his
house. On 21.6.1981 at about 6.00 P.M. his nephew (bhanja) Lalta Prasad s/o of the deceased came
to his house and informed that his father was badly beating his mother. Immediately he rushed to
the house of his sister Jasoda Devi (deceased) and saw that Jhamman Lal of the same Mohalla and
his niece (Bhanji) Harpyari were present at the place of the incident and his brother-in-law, Bahnoi
Ramgopal and second wife Hansia were badly beating his sister Jasoda Devi, with iron rod and
lathi with an intention to kill her. Due to injuries his sister fell down and was crying. He and
Jhamman Lal scolded to Ram Gopal and Hansia, then they went from there leaving his sister in
injured condition. He brought his sister Jasoda Devi to the Hospital and got her admitted and after
getting her admitted in the Hospital came to the Police Station for lodging of the First Information
Report. The request was made to register the report and take legal action. The report was scribed by
Bhagwat Saran s/o Ram Saran. The chick report was prepared by constable Puland Singh.

6) After the First Information Report was lodged and registered, the investigating officer
came at the place of the incident and went to the hospital. Jasoda Devi was examined by the doctor
and according to the injury report Ext.Ka.11 only one lacerated wound 3 cm x 5 cm x bone deep
right side forehead, 3.5 cm above eyebrow was noted. X-ray was advised. Rest of of injuries were
26 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

deferred as the condition of patient was found very serious. She was admitted in emergency ward
and the police was informed. According to opinion, the injuries were caused by blunt object and
fresh. During treatment Jasoda Devi expired at 1.45 A.M. in the intervening night of 21/22.6.1981.
Postmortem examination was conducted on the body of Jasoda Devi who was aged about 45 years,
in District Hospital by Dr.P.K.Bass, Medical Officer, District Hospital. As many as six injuries
were noted. Injury No.4 was found dangerous. Injury No.1 was found lacerated wound 2 cm x 1 cm
x muscle deep on right side forehead, 3 cm above root of nose, No.2 abraded contusion 1 cm x 1
cm on outer angle of right eyebrow, No.3 Contusion 4 cm x 2 cm on the right side head, 5 cm
above right ear, No.4 Contusion 6 cm x 4 cm on the left side, 4 cm above left ear, No.5 Contusion 6
cm x 4 cm on the back of left side of chest 5 cm below scapula, No.6 abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm on the
back of left elbow joint Haemotoma present, all below scalp. Left side skull bone pressed fracture
in temporal bone. Membrane and brain congested. The cause of death was head injury and coma
due to head injury. The postmortem examination report was exhibited as Ext.Ka 17.

7) From place of the incident blood stained and simple piece of cemented floor was taken
for sample into two separate containers. Broken bangles were also collected from the place of the
incident as Ext Ka.9 and kept in container by the Sub Inspector. Samples were sent to the Forensic
Science Laboratory and as per report blood stains were found on the pieces of cemented floors,
dothi and petikot. Panchayatnama was prepared. Statement of the witnesses were recorded by the
Investigation Officer. After death the case was converted under section 302 I.P.C. and after
completing investigation and formalities, charge sheet was submitted by the second Investigating
Officer Man Singh Sirohi, PW-12. The charges were framed by the 5th Additional District &
Sessions Judge, Bareilly under section 302 I.P.C. on 4.12.1981. The accused appellant denied the
charges and pleaded to be tried.

8) The prosecution to prove its case examined as many as 15 witnesses. PW-1 Mohan Lal,
the informant, brother of the deceased Jasoda Devi, PW-2 Har Pyari, daughter of the deceased,
PW-3 Jawala Singh who prepared panchyatnama in the hospital, Ext.Ka.3-4, The dead body was
kept in sealed cover and the same was sent to the mortuary through constable Manohar Lal, PW-6,
Ext.Ka.6 requesting him for postmortem examination on the body of the deceased Jasoda Devi and
second Investigating Officer Man Singh took up the investigation next day on 22.6.1981, PW-4
Ram Autar Arun, the then Sub Inspector, PS Baradari before whom the First Information Report
was lodged and chick report was prepared and he started investigation, PW-5 Sahadat Ali,
Formasist who proved the injury report, prepared by Dr.Rajiv Agrawal, PW-6 the then Moharir
who carried the dead body to the mortuary, PW-7 Din Das Ward Boy proved the death of Jasoda
Devi at 1.45 P.M. in the intervening night 21/22.6.1981, PW-8 Head Moharir Ram Chandra Singh
proved chick report and G.D. entry which was prepared by the then constable Puland Singh, PW-9
Dr. P.K. Boss the then Medical Officer, District Hospital who conducted the postmortem
examination on the body of the deceased Jasoda Devi, PW-10 Sishupal Singh who was moharir in
malkhana, kept the sample and deposited the same, PW-11 constable M.A.Beg, who carried the
sample of pieces of cemented floor, bundle of clothes, keel of the deceased, broken bangles and
bichhua of the deceased from Malkhana, PS. Baradari and deposited the same in Sadar Malkhana,
PW-12 Sub Inspector, Man Singh Sirohi, the second Investigating Officer who took up the
8 All. Ram Gopal Vs State Of U.P.
27
investigation, next day on 22.6.1981 and submitted the charge sheet against the appellants under
section 302 I.P.C., PW-13 constable Puland Singh who prepared chick report, PW-14 Om Pal
Singh who carried three sealed bundles related with the case and placed before the Chief Medical
Officer, PW-15 Dr.Rajiv Agrawal who examined Jasoda Devi when she was brought in injured
condition on 21.6.1981.

9) After prosecution closed its evidence the statement of the accused appellants Ram
Gopal and Hasia were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the allegations and charges
and submitted that they were falsely implicated in the case. Further stated that in fact Har Pyari,
PW-2, daughter of the deceased had developed illicit relation with a boy which was not liked by the
deceased Jasoda Devi, hence some altercation took place in between them. When she (appellant)
tried to intervene, she was also assaulted. Smt.Bhagwati was also present there. Further stated that
the appellant Ram Gopal was not present at the time of incident. From defence two witnesses were
examined. DW-1 Anil Kumar clerk State Bank of Bikaner and Jaypur to prove that one Om
Prakash, one of the alleged witness of panchayatnama was in fact present on duty in the bank
where he was class-IV employee. Scribe of the First Information Report namely Bhagwat Saran
was examined as DW-2. According to him, his marriage was performed with Bhagwati eight years
ago and at the time of marriage his both mother-in-laws Jasoda Devi and Hansia were present and
participated in the marriage ceremony. They had cordial relations. After the incident he was in
sadar hospital when he was called by Ganeshi Mama, the brother of Mohan Lal. He stated that he
wrote the First Information Report on the dictation of the sub inspector, thereafter Ganeshi Mama
put his thumb impression on the report, whose name was referred and mentioned as Mohan Lal.
Paper and pen were provided by the inspector for writing the report. He also stated that Har Pyari,
his sister-in-law PW-2 had illicit relation with one Lalta Prasad and after her statement was
recorded in the court, she went to the house of Lalta Prasad and started living with him as wife.
She also gave birth to a male child.

10) After hearing the argument of counsel for the parties and going through record, the trial
judge held the appellants guilty for committing murder of Jasoda Devi and they were convicted and
sentenced for life imprisonment vide impugned judgment dated 26.9.1983. Being aggrieved against
which the present appeal was preferred.

11) Shri Harish Chandra Tiwari, learned counsel appearing as Amicus Curiae challenged
the impugned judgment on the ground that none of the witnesses of fact examined by the
prosecution were present at the place of the incident. PW-1 Mohan Lal was not present at the place
of the incident. According to prosecution case he was informed by Lalta Prasad, minor son of
Jasoda Devi (deceased), sister of the informant. After getting information he rushed to the place of
the incident and as per averment his house was at a distance of 50-60 steps away from the house of
the deceased. However, according to his averment and statement of PW-2 Har Pyari, daughter of
the deceased, when Ram Gopal, the appellant no.1 (dead) and Hasia, appellant no.2 started beating
to the deceased Jasoda Devi then Har Pyari, sent Lalta Prasad (son of the deceased) who was aged
about 10-12 years old to inform Mohan Lal, brother of the deceased Jasoda Devi. When he came to
know, he reached and saw that the appellants were beating with kick- fist and by saria (iron rod)
28 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

and lathi, Ram Gopal was having saria and the appellant assaulted with lathi. In the injury report
only one lacerated wound was noted and in the postmortem examination report six injuries were
noted. (1) lacerated wound and 2 to 5 contusion which appear to be unnatural that the appellants
continued to assault to her, during that period when Lalta Prasad went to the house of informant
and thereafter the informant reached at the place of the incident. Lalta Prasad, son of the deceased
was not examined by the prosecution.

12) From a perusal of the injury report it is clear that the injured Jasoda Devi was brought
by Smt.Bhagwati, elder daughter and she was examined at 6.00 P.M. on 21.6.1981 by Dr.Rajiv
Agrawal. Had Mohan Lal, PW-1 and Har Pyari, PW-2 were present, they might have tried to save
her and got her admitted in the hospital for medical aid. It also shows that Mohan Lal was also not
present at the place of the incident. According to opinion of the doctor injury no.4 was fatal and
dangerous to life and due to injury no.4 death was possible which might have been caused by lathi.
He also submitted that according to prosecution case Jhamman Lal, brother of the appellant no.1
Ram Gopal was present who was not examined. However, there was no attempt either by PW-1 or
by Jhamman Lal to save Smt.Jasoda Devi who was first wife of the appellant no.1 Ram Gopal and
the appellant no.2 Hasia is second wife of Ram Gopal. Smt.Jasoda was brought by Smt.Bhagwati
and she was got admitted in the hospital at 6.00 P.M. According to PW-7 Dharam Das, Ward Boy,
District Hospital and record, she died at 1.45 A.M. in the intervening night of 21/22.6.1981.
However, there was no effort to record her statement.

13) Counsel for the appellants further submitted that the statement of Har Pyari was
recorded after 21-22 days so there was delay in recording her statement. There was no recovery of
lathi and saria. The statement of the witnesses were recorded on 13.7.1981. According to
Investigating Officer PW-12 Man Singh, he searched the witnesses for recording their statements.

14) According to defence version and statement of PW-1 Ram Gopal, marriage with Hasia
was performed 10-12 years before the incident. On the same day at 9.00 P.M. he was arrested from
the hotel which was in the same house. The Distance in between the place of the incident and house
of Mohan Lal and Ganesh was about more than one kilometre. However, according to defence case
and statement of DW-2 Bhagwat Saran (scribe of the First Information Report) Bhagwati and Har
Pyari, PW-2 were present in the house. The appellant Ram Gopal was not present there. PW-2 Har
Pyari, daughter of the deceased Jasoda Devi had illicit relation with one boy. She wanted to go
along with him which was opposed by the deceased Jasoda devi. Due to that some altercation took
place and she was assaulted by PW-2 Har Pyari DW-2, further stated that he wrote the First
Information Report on direction of the Sub Inspector and signed on that. He is also son-in-law of
Ram Gopal and the deceased Jasoda Devi. His marriage was performed eight years ago and at the
time of marriage, both mother-in-laws namely Jasoda Devi and Hasia (appellant no.2) were
present. Both performed Kanyadan, hence the existence of the First Information Report itself
become doubtful. However, the trial court failed to appreciate the defence version. Though the
prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the prosecution story was found
suspicious, however, the appellants were held guilty, hence the impugned judgment of conviction
and sentence is liable to be set aside.
8 All. Ram Gopal Vs State Of U.P.
29
15) Learned Government Advocate submitted that except minor contradiction and
negligible discrepancy there is no major contradiction to affect the merit of the case. The witnesses
whose statement are reliable, have supported the prosecution case. PW-1 Mohan Lal, informant is
brother of the deceased. After getting information through Lalta Prasad, son of the deceased.
According to him the distance from his house was about 50-60 steps away from place of the
incident and after getting information he rushed to the house of the deceased. She was immediately
taken to the hospital and after admitting Jasoda in the hospital Mohan Lal, PW-1 went to lodge the
First Information Report. As per evidence and statement of PW-1 and PW-2 the deceased was
legally married wife of Ram Gopal, appellant no.1 (since dead) and the appellant no.2 Hasia is
second wife. Due to that quarrel used to take place in between the husband and wife and even he
used to slap her. Her husband Ram Gopal also used to threat her to kill. On the date of incident i.e.
in the evening of 21.6.1991 at about 5.00 P.M. both the appellant Ram Gopal and Hasia stated that
the apepllants were beating to the deceased Jasoda. The appellants assaulted with kick-fist and saria
and lathi. Injury No.4 was found dangerous to life and death was possible due to that injury which
was caused by lathi. The appellant no.2 was having lathi and appellant no.1 Ram Gopal assaulted
with saria. Merely on the delay in recording the statement the prosecution story cannot be
disbelieved because in the present case both the witnesses are reliable witnesses. Their presence
are not doubtful. PW-2 is daughter of the deceased and PW-1 Mohan Lal, is brother of the
deceased. There was no reason of false implication. The incident took place in the house of the
appellants though according to defence case the appellant no.1 was not present in the house but no
reliable evidence was placed whether he was present at the time of incident or not? However,
deference made the allegation against PW-2 Har Pyari, daughter of the deceased and appellant
no.1, that she was having love affairs and illicit relation with a person, on which the deceased
raised objection and some quarrel took place in which she was assaulted by PW-2 Har Pyari and
Bhagwati, the elder daughter of the deceased. The appellant no.2 Hasia tried to intervene, hence she
also received injuries but the fact that Har Pyari was having illicit relation, subsequently she went
alongwith him and gave birth to a child, was not proved by the defence. It appears that in defence
false story was set up without any reliable evidence to support the same. Learned A.G.A. further
contended that though DW-2 Bhagwat Saran, son-in-law of the appellant no.1 has not supported
the prosecution case who is scribe of the First Information Report but it appears that due to pressure
and influence of his father-in-law he has not supported the version of the First Information Report.

16) So for as Jhamman Lal, brother of the appellant no.1 is concerned, he was present at
the place of the incident but being brother of the appellant no.1 if he did not appear as prosecution
witness merely on this ground also prosecution story has not to be disbelieved. The prosecution
case proved by PW-1 and PW-2 is also corroborated by the medical report.

17) Learned A.G.A. submitted as per version of the DW-1, PW-1 was not Mohan Lal
rather he was Ganeshi, elder brother of Mohan Lal but there was no effort or any application on
behalf of the defence to prove this fact that PW-1 who appeared as Mohan Lal was in fact not
Mohan Lal rather he was Ganeshi, elder brother of Mohan. Merely on this defence version,
prosecution story has not to be disbelieved.
30 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

18) Hence the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.

19) Considered the submissions of counsels for the parties and perused the records.

20) Admittedly the appellant no.1 Ram Gopal (since dead) was married to the deceased
Jasoda Devi. According to prosecution case about two and half years back he remarried with Hasia
appellant no.2 and since then he was in search of opportunity to remove and kill Smt.Jasoda and
quarrel used to take place in between them. The First Information Report was lodged and registered
by Mohan Lal, brother of the deceased Smt.Jasoda Devi. According to version of the First
Information Report, on 21.6.1981, informant got information through his Bhanja (Lalta Prasad),
son of the deceased Jasoda Devi at about 6.00 P.M. that his father was badly beating to his mother.
Immediately he rushed to the house of his sister Jasoda Devi and saw that Jhamman Lal, brother of
Ram Gopal (appellant no.1) and niece Har Pyari PW-2 present at the place of the incident and his
brother appellant no.1 and his second wife Hasia were beating with iron rod (saria) and lathi. His
sister Jasoda Devi had fallen down on the floor and was crying. When Jamman Lal and informant
scolded them, then they left the house leaving the injured Jasoda Devi. Thereafter he took her to
the hospital and after admitting in the hospital he went to lodge the First Information Report at the
Police Station Baradari, District Bareilly which was written by Bhagwat Saran.

21) The prosecution did not examine either Jhamman Lal, brother of Ram Gopal and
Bhagwat Saran, scribe of the First Information. Subsequently Bhagwat Saran was examined as
defence witness (DW-2) who has not supported the version of the First Information Report.
According to him he was married to Bhagwati, elder sister of Har Pyari, PW-2, daughter of the
deceased Jasoda Devi and the appellant no.1 eight years ago. There was good relation in between
them, even Kanyadan of Bhagwati was performed by both the mother in-laws namely Jasoda Devi
and Hasia, (the appellant no.2.). According to him Harpyari has illicit relation with a person.
According to defence version of the appellant no.1 Ram Gopal who is father of Har Pyari, PW-2
she had illicit relation with a person with whom she wanted to marry and there was objection raised
by her mother Jasoda Devi (deceased).

22) According to DW-2 Bhagwat Saran, scribe of the First Information Report, First
Information Report was not dictated by PW-1 rather it was dictated by S.I. (Daroga Ji), hence this
story that PW-1 saw the incident appears to be doubtful. There are six injuries noted by the doctor
in postmortem examination report and according to the version of the First Information Report and
the statement of PW-1, the appellants started beating at about 5.00 P.M. with kick fist and iron rod
saria and lathi and when PW-1 got information at 6.00 P.M., then he rushed to the place of the
incident. Hence if the versions of PW-1 and PW-2 are correct that Jasoda was beaten by kick fist,
saria and iron rod continuously for more than one hour but she had sustained only six injuries, out
of which injury no.1 was found dangerous to life which was cause of death and other injuries were
simple in nature. The cause of death was due to head injury and coma. Injury No.4 noted as
contusion 6 cm x 4 cm on the left side head, 4 cm above left ear, hence it appears that PW-1
reached at the place of the incident subsequently and he did not see who assaulted the deceased
Smt.Jasoda Devi. Apart from that, from a perusal of the injury report and statement of Dr.Rajiv
8 All. Ram Gopal Vs State Of U.P.
31
Agrawal, the then Medical Officer, Jasoda Devi was brought by daughter Smt.Bhagwati, wife of
DW-2 Bhagwat Saran who is scribe of the First Information Report. The statement that she was
taken to the hospital by PW-1 appears to be incorrect. The presence of Bhagwati was not shown in
the First Information Report or in the statement at the place of the incident and even she was not
examined from the side of the prosecution, who is elder daughter of the deceased. The deceased
was got admitted by her in the hospital by Bhagwati, hence it appears that she was present at the
place of the incident and hence immediately Jasoda Devi was taken to the hospital and got
admitted her in the hospital. According to defence case also Bhagwati was present in the house and
as per information given to her husband Bhagwat Saran, quarrel took place in between PW-2 Har
Pyari and the deceased Jasoda. The appellant no.1 was not present at the time of incident in the
house. He came to know regarding the incident subsequently. It appears that he was not aware that
he was named in the First Information Report and the allegation was made against him because in
the same night he was apprehended from the hotel by the police. The hotel was being run in the
house. The scribe has not supported the prosecution case. The statements of the witnesses were
recorded on 13.7.1981 though the incident took place on 21.6.1981.

23) There was no recovery of saria, lathi even the statement of Har Pyari was recorded
after 21 days. Smt.Jasoda Devi was got admitted in the hospital at 6.00 P.M. She died at 1.45 A.M.
but her statement could not be recorded during this period, even Lalta Prasad, son of the deceased
was not examined by the prosecution as witness whose presence was shown at the place of the
incident. According to defence, the distance of the house of appellant No.1 was more than one
kilometer. Apart from that according to prosecution case Jhamman Lal, brother of the appellant
no.1 and Har Pyari-PW-2 were present at the place of the incident, Lalta Prasad, minor son was
also present and when Jasoda Devi was being beaten by the appellant, no one tried to save her and
such conduct appears to be unnatural.

24) In view of the facts and circumstances and in view of the above noted discussions, the
prosecution story which have not been supported even by the scribe of the First Information
Report, is doubtful. The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

25) The incident is of the year 1981. The appeal is of the year 1983. In view of the facts
and circumstances the sole surviving appellant no.2 Hasia is entitled for the benefit of doubt. Hence
the impugned judgement and order of conviction and sentence dated 26.9.1983 passed by learned
VIIth Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bareilly in S.T.No.366/1981 under section 302 read
with section 34 of I.P.C. arising out of Case Crime No.389/1981, Police Station Baradari, District
Bareilly is hereby set aside. The appellant is on bail, hence her bail bonds and sureties are hereby
discharged.

26) Accordingly this appeal is hereby allowed. We appreciate the assistance provided by
Mr.H.C.Tiwari(Amicus Curiae) and learned A.G.A.
-----------
32 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(2016) 8 ILRA 32
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 23.08.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH BAGHEL, J.

Service Single No.- 4838 Of 2016

Mritunjay Pratap Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for Petitioner:
Sharad Pathak

Counsel for Respondents:
C.S.C., Anu Pratap Singh, Durgesh Mishra, Manushreshth Mishra, Pradeep Kumar Singh
Held

Any administrative order which has civil consequences must comply with principles of natural justice,
particularly audi alteram partem (right to hearing).

If an order is passed without affording opportunity of hearing to the affected party, it is vitiated and
liable to be set aside.

Where pleadings regarding denial of opportunity are not specifically denied by respondents, the Court
may accept such averments.

A statutory authority exercising power which adversely affects rights is duty-bound to act fairly and
follow natural justice.

The impugned order rejecting approval of appointment was passed in breach of natural justice, hence
unsustainable.

Consequently, the impugned order dated 15.02.2016 was quashed and the matter remitted to the
competent authority for fresh decision after giving opportunity to all concerned parties.

Interim protection: If the petitioner is already working and receiving salary, he shall continue subject to
final decision.

CASE LAW CITED

State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei, (1967) 2 SCR 625

A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 150

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248