# Ram Khilari (In Jail) v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2020) 11 ILRA 482
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-10-19
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 2867 of 2012
- **Bench:** Arvind Kumar Mishra-I, Subhash Chand
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-khilari-in-jail-v-state-of-u-p-45423
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,1860 -
Sections 307, 504, 506 - Scheduled
Class/Scheduled
Tribes
Act,
1989
-
Section 3(2) -Criminal appeal has been filed
against conviction under section 307, 504, 506
I.P.C. and 3(2)V S.C./S.T. Act

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,1860 -
Exception 4 of 300 I.P.C. - Culpable
homicide is not murder if it is committed
without premeditation in sudden fight -
Absence of grave and sudden provocation,
provocation is self induced by the appellant.
(Para 23)

There is no material contradiction of the
occurrence appearing in the testimony of two
eye witnesses. ( Para 24 )

Prosecution has successfully proved its case
beyond all reasonable doubt against the
appellant. Judgment of Trial Court upheld (Para
29)

Appeal dismissed. (E-2)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

482 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
All the appellants are acquitted of the
charge framed against them. It be noted
that all the appellants were, earlier, on bail
pending this appeal. But, subsequently, on
non-appearance of their counsel, nonbailable warrants were issued against them.
Although there is no report that non
bailable
warrants
were
executed
but
according to the learned counsel for the
appellant the non bailable warrants have
been executed and the appellants are now
in jail. In view of the above, it is directed
that if the appellants are in jail, they shall
be released forthwith, unless wanted in any
other case, subject to compliance of the
provisions of Section 437 A CrPC before
the trial court below. In case the nonbailable warrants have not been executed,
they shall stand withdrawn and if the
appellants are not in jail they need not
surrender, subject to compliance of the
provisions of Section 437-A as directed
above.

64. Let a copy of this order be sent to
the trial court for compliance.
----------
(2020)11ILR A482
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.10.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA-I, J.
THE HON'BLE SUBHASH CHAND, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 2867 of 2012

Ram Khilari ...Appellant (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri
Akhilesh
Srivastava,
Sri
Noor
Mohammad, Sri Ray Sahab Yadav, Sri
Sushil Kumar, Sri Vijay Bahadur Yadav
Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,1860 -
Sections 307, 504, 506 - Scheduled
Class/Scheduled
Tribes
Act,
1989
-
Section 3(2) -Criminal appeal has been filed
against conviction under section 307, 504, 506
I.P.C. and 3(2)V S.C./S.T. Act

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,1860 -
Exception 4 of 300 I.P.C. - Culpable
homicide is not murder if it is committed
without premeditation in sudden fight -
Absence of grave and sudden provocation,
provocation is self induced by the appellant.
(Para 23)

There is no material contradiction of the
occurrence appearing in the testimony of two
eye witnesses. ( Para 24 )

Prosecution has successfully proved its case
beyond all reasonable doubt against the
appellant. Judgment of Trial Court upheld (Para
29)

Appeal dismissed. (E-2)

List of Cases cited:-
1. Khuman Singh Vs St. of M.P. & anr., reported
in 2019 (3) JIC 420 (SC)
2. Khuman Singh Vs St. of M.P. & anr.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arvind Kumar
Mishra-I, J.)

1. Heard Sri Noor Mohammad,
learned counsel for the appellant, learned
A.G.A. for the State and perused the
material brought on record.

2. The instant criminal appeal has
been preferred by the appellant - Ram
Khilari son of Phulwari Yadav, resident of
11 All. Ram Khilari Vs. State of U.P.
483
Village - Deenapur, Police Station -
Palimukeempur, District - Aligarh, against
the judgment and order dated 09.07.2012
passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court
No. 6, Aligarh, in Session Trial No.450 of
2006, arising out of Case Crime No.126 of
2004 (State vs. Ram Khilari and another),
under Sections - 307, 504, 506 I.P.C. and
3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as
"S.C./S.T. Act"), Aligarh, whereby the
appellant has been convicted with the
sentence
of
ten
years
rigorous
imprisonment under Section - 307/34 I.P.C.
coupled with fine Rs. 10,000/- with default
clause
to
suffer
additional
rigorous
imprisonment for one year. Similarly, one
year rigorous imprisonment has been
imposed under Section 504 I.P.C., coupled
with fine Rs. 500/- with default clause for
three
months
additional
rigorous
imprisonment,
two
years
rigorous
imprisonment under Section - 506 I.P.C.,
coupled with fine Rs.5,000/- with default
clause to suffer six months additional
rigorous
imprisonment
and
life
imprisonment
under
Section
3(2)(v)
S.C./S.T. Act, coupled with fine Rs.
20,000/- with default clause to suffer two
years additional rigorous imprisonment. All
the
sentences
were
directed
to
run
concurrently.

3. Necessary and relevant facts, as
gathered from the record, which led to the
conviction of the appellant, appear to be
that an F.I.R. was lodged by one Hardwari
son of Kewal Singh Jatav on 12.11.2004 at
Police Station - Palimukeempur at Case
Crime No. 126 of 2004, under Sections -
307, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v)
S.C./S.T. Act, with the allegations that the
informant along with his nephew Satyaveer
son of Ajuddi Prasad, were celebrating the
festival of Deepawali at their home, when
Ram Khilari son of Phulwari Yadav and
Maloda son of Om Prakash Yadav, arrived
at the house of the informant in drunken
position at around 05:00 p.m. Both the
persons were possessing country-made
guns in their hands. They started abusing
and
demanded
Rs.
100/-
from
the
informant. On refusal to meet the demand,
scuffle started on the spot and in the
meanwhile, Ram Khilari with the intention
to kill, fired upon the nephew of the
informant, which fire hit the left temple and
passed through and through. The incident
was witnessed by the villagers Tara Chand
and Charan Singh. Both the accused made
their escape good from the spot, threatening
of dire consequences in case any report is
lodged to the ambit that their lives will not
be spared. Request was made for lodging
the report and taking action. Report is dated
12.11.2004, and the same is Ext. Ka.1.

4. On the basis of the contents of the
written report, Check F.I.R. was prepared
under the aforesaid sections of I.P.C. at
aforesaid case crime number at police
station - Palimukeempur, at aforesaid date
and time. The Check F.I.R. is Ext.Ka-5 and
the relevant General Diary entry at report
no.29 at 6:20 p.m. on 12.11.2004, whereby
the case was registered at the police station
under the aforesaid sections of I.P.C. and
the S.C./S.T. Act, respectively, is Ext.Ka-6.

5. The investigation was entrusted to
P.W.-7,
R.C.
Gupta,
Deputy
Superintendent
of
Police,
who
took
cognizance of the Check F.I.R. and the
written report, G.D. Entry etc. and recorded
statement of the police witnesses, and also
recorded the contents of the F.I.R. in the
Check F.I.R. Later on, he inspected the spot
on 14.11.2004, recorded statement of the
persons present over there. The spot map
484 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
was prepared by him, which is Ext. Ka-7.
The Investigating Officer also prepared
memo of blood-stained earth from the spot,
which is Ext. Ka-8.

6. The record further reflects that the
medical
examination
of
the
injured
Satyaveer was conducted by Dr. Jamal
Ajmat P.W.-3, who examined him on
12.11.2004 at 8:30 p.m. at J.N. Medical
College,
Hospital,
Aligarh
Muslim
University Aligarh and found the following
two injuries viz. lacerated entry wound in
the measurement of 3 x 3 c.m. on the upper
portion of left cheek, and the second wound
was described as lacerated exit wound
behind the back of the head left side below
the ear. This report has been proved as Ext.
Ka-2 by this witness (P.W.3). It was stated
that the nature of the injuries was serious
and can be caused by gunshot. P.W.4 is
C.O. Mansha Ram Gautam, who took over
investigation on 28.01.2005 from the first
Investigating Officer and he also recorded
statement of the accused Ram Khilari on
18.02.2005. P.W. 5, V.S. Mishra is the
third Investigating Officer of this case. He
also carried out the left over investigation
on 29.03.2005. He, after recording the
statement of several persons filed, chargesheet against Ram Khilari, which is Ext.
Ka-4 on record.

7. Pursuant thereto, the Additional
Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Aligarh heard
both the sides on point of charge and was
prima-facie satisfied with the case against
the accused-appellant, accordingly, framed
charges under Sections 307/34, 504, 506
I.P.C. and 3(2)(v) S.C./S.T. Act. Charges
were read over and explained to the
accused-appellant who abjured the charges
and opted for trial.

8. The prosecution, in order to prove
guilt of the appellant examined as many as
seven witnesses, a brief sketch of them is ut
infra :-

9. P.W.-1 Hardwari is the informant
and the eye witness of the occurrence.
P.W.-2 Satyaveer is the injured eye
witness. P.W.3 is Dr. Jamal Azmat. P.W.4,
Mansha Ram Gautam, P.W.-V.S. Mishra
and P.W.7 R.C. Gupta are the three
Investigating officers of this case, whereas
P.W.6 Nihal Singh has taken down the
contents written report in the Check F.I.R.
and has proved the same as Ext. Ka-5.

10. Except as above, no other
testimony was adduced by the prosecution.
Consequently, evidence for the prosecution
was closed and statement of the accused
was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.,
wherein he claimed to have been falsely
implicated in this case on account of
enmity.

11. In turn, the defence produced
D.W.1 Rewati Singh-the scribe of the first
information report and D.W.2 Tara Chand.

12. Thereafter, evidence for the
defence was closed and the case was posted
for arguments and as a sequel to that
arguments concluded.

13. After appreciating the evidentiary
value and considering the attendant facts
and circumstances of the case, the trial
court recorded finding of conviction and
passed the aforesaid sentence under the
respective sections of I.P.C. and the
S.C./S.T. Act, as above.

14. Resultantly, this appeal.
11 All. Ram Khilari Vs. State of U.P.
485

15. Sri Noor Mohammad, learned
counsel for the appellant has assailed the
merits of this case on several counts and
has vigorously contended that no offence,
whatsoever, has been committed in this
case and no evidence has been tendered by
the prosecution which can prove case of the
prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. That
way, to prove the ambit of Section 3(2)(v)
S.C./S.T. Act to the effect that the accused
committed the crime, knowing it well that
the victim is a member of and belonged to
schedule caste and schedule tribe, thus
applicability of Section 3(2)(v) S.C./S.T.
Act is elaborated with the pre-requisite that
the crime was committed in such state of
mind knowing it well that the victim is a
member of and he belonged to the S.C./S.T.
community and in case that element is
missing, then no conviction can be
recorded by the trial court under Section
3(2)(v) of the S.C./S.T. Act. In support of
his argument, learned counsel for the
appellant,, has placed reliance upon the
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Khuman Singh Vs. State of M.P.
and Another, reported in 2019 (3) JIC 420
(SC) wherein the sentence awarded under
Section 3(2)(v) S.C./S.T. Act was severely
assailed on that count. Next contended that
the present case in hand is under Section
307 I.P.C. The incident took place all of a
sudden
out
of
grave
and
sudden
provocation because the qurrel arose on the
spot and it was not premeditated and was
never intended in pre- planned manner to
commit the crime. The investigation was
not conducted fairly and the trial court
overlooked the clinching testimony of the
defence witnesses that the F.I.R. was
written at the police station. That way, the
F.I.R. is as a result of deliberation with the
police. The scribe was examined as D.W.1
and he has clarified fact that the F.I.R. was
dictated at the instance of 'Daroga Ji' at the
police station and that fact creates doubt
about the very genuineness of the first
information report itself. There are patent
and inherent contradictions in the testimony
of the prosecution witnesses both facts and
formal witnesses. They are improving and
vacilating and their testimony is full of
embellishments and can not be believed.
Lastly, contended sentence awarded is too
harsh.

16. Learned A.G.A. has submitted
that each and every aspect of the case has
been duly considered and the charges have
been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Insofar as the present case is concerned, the
case of Khuman Singh (supra) referred to
by the learned counsel for the appellant as
above, the same is highly distinguishable
on fact, because in that case (aforecited),
the dispute arose all of a sudden, when the
assailants tried to graze their cattle on the
field of the deceased who drove away the
cattle/buffaloes of the accused from his
field, when some wordy altercation took
place on the spot, followed by assault being
caused on the deceased and that was
considered to be outcome of grave and
sudden provocation, and not a premeditated
plan to assault the deceased because he was
a member and belonged to the Scheduled
Caste community. That being so, the facts
of this case in hand are entirely different,
therefore the ratio as laid down in the case
of Khuman Singh (supra) is very much
distinguishable from the facts of this case
and not helpful to the appellant.

17. We have considered the rival
submissions. The moot point that arises for
consideration relates to fact whether the
prosecution has been able to bring home
various charges aforesaid against the
accused-appellant beyond all reasonable
doubt ?
486 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

18. In that context, upon careful
consideration of the entire merits, we
observe that the incident, as emanating
from
the
F.I.R.,
indicates
that
the
occurrence took place in the evening of the
Deepawali festival, when the victim was
sitting in his home, where the assailants
came and demanded Rs. 100/-, which on
refusal by the victim resulted into assault
being caused to the victim/informant.

19. The money was being demand for
purchasing
liquor/alcohol.
While
demanding money, the informant was
vituperated in the name of caste. Insofar as
the time of the incident is concerned, it is
stated to have occurred around 5:00 P.M.
The incident was reported at the police
station on 12.11.2004 around 6:20 P.M.
The description of the occurrence further
states that on refusal to give the money,
some scuffle took place followed by wordy
altercation with the accused. In the
meanwhile, Ram Khilari with the intention
to kill fired upon the nephew of the
informant (Hardwari), which hit and passed
through and through from the left temple of
the victim. The incident was witnessed by
Tara Chand and Charan Singh- the
inhabitants of the same village.

20. In the backdrop of the aforesaid
allegations/averments, the testimony of the
injured witness as well as the informant
becomes relevant. The testimony of the
injured victim- Satyaveer P.W.2, indicates
that he has supported the version of the
F.I.R. that the incident took place around
5:00 P.M. when he was celebrating the
festival of Deepawali at his home. His
uncle Hardwari was also present at that
time, when the accused Maloda and Ram
Khilari arrived at his home and extended
abuses in the name of caste and demanded
Rs.100/- for purchasing alcohol. On refusal
to give money by his uncle that he is unable
to give the money, both the accused, who
were possessing 'tamancha' in their hands
started
scuffling
and
came
on
the
'khadanja' path. At that time, he was
playing
with
fire-works
under
the
'sheesham' tree and at that point of time,
Ram Khilari fired on his uncle with the
intention to kill him, but it instead hit him
(P.W.2). In the meanwhile, Tara Chand and
Charan Singh arrived on the spot. After the
shot hit this witness (P.W.2-Satyaveer), he
became unconscious. Thereafter, he was
taken to the medical college for treatmennt.
He has testified that the gun shot scar was
still visible on his face.

21. We upon careful perusal of the
record also find that this witness (P.W.2)
was medically examined by Dr. Jamal
Azmat P.W.3 at J.N. Medical College
Hospital
Aligarh
Muslim
University,
Aligarh on 12.11.2004 around 8:30 P.M.,
wherein two injuries were found on his
person viz., lacerated entry wound 3 x 3
c.m. on left cheek which was grievous in
nature and lacerated exit wound with
ragged margins with visible bony passing
through and through to the back of head
left side. This injury report has been proved
by P.W.3 Dr. Jamal Azmat as Ext. Ka-2.
Both the gun shots have been stated to be
of grievous in nature. The doctor witness
has
further
testified
in
his
cross
examination that the fire was shot from a
certain distance, therefore, there was no
blackening, charring and tattooing. The
specific testimony of the doctor witness
that this injury could have been caused by
the gun shot has not been put to any
challenge, whatsoever, by the defence.
Here, the testimony of P.W.1 Hardwari also
corroborates testimony of P.W.-2 Satyaveer
in
material
particular,
regarding
the
occurrence and in the absence of any
11 All. Ram Khilari Vs. State of U.P.
487
specific challenge to the gun shot injury
being caused by the accused upon the
injured Satyaveer, the occurrence stands
proved
by
the
prosecution
beyond
reasonable doubt.

22. Learned counsel for the appellant has
vehemently argued on the strength of case of
Khuman Singh versus State of M.P. And
another as referred to hereinabove and has
submitted that at the time of commission of the
offence, the accused must commit the offence
knowing it well that the person belonged to the
scheduled caste community and it being so, the
offence was committed. Any conviction
recorded under Section - 3(2)(v) of S.C./S.T.
Act in the absence of any specific proof by the
prosecution on that pariticular aspect would
render the conviction illegal. But the aforecited
case does not come to the rescue of the
appellant on the ground that the facts of the
present case are entirely different from the one
as were juxtaposed in the above referred case of
"Khuman Singh vs. State of M.P. And another".
The reason being that in that case, the Hon'ble
Apex Court apparently found that it was a case
of sudden provocation which was extended by
the
informant
side
itself
when
the
informant/victim drove away the cattle of the
accused from his field, which led to assault
being caused on the victim, thus causing his
death. Here, in the abovecited case, the
conviction was initially recorded under Section
- 302 I.P.C. but it was altered and modified and
confined to Section 304 Part-II I.P.C. on
account of fact that it was not a premeditated
murder the incident occurred in a spur of
moment on the spot and it was a case of grave
and sudden provocation, thus falling within one
of the exceptions of Section - 300 I.P.C. The
cause of action arose on the spot.

23. Here, in this case in hand, argument
has been advanced by learned counsel for the
appellant that the incident took place all of a
sudden, but the argument is casual and does not
carry any substance, for the reason that both
Satyaveer and Hardwari were celebrating the
festival of Deepawali at their home in the
evening around 5:00 P.M., when the assailants
appeared/arrived on the spot and forcefully
demanded Rs. 100/- for taking liquor. On
refusal being made, scuffle followed which led
to the firing by the appellant, thus causing
injury upon P.W.-2 Satyaveer. There is no point
that any sort of provocation was given or
extended by the injured or the informant to the
accused. Refusing to give money would not be
treated to be any sort of provocation in this case
(in hand). Therefore, the aforecited case is not
helpful to the appellant. Here, there is absence
of grave and sudden provocation. Here the
provocation is self induced by the appellant.

24. Insofar as the finding on the other
aspects of the case as recorded by the trial court
are concerned, the same is consistent and
justified. It is per-chance that the injured was
saved, but the seat of injury is the head- the vital
part of body and nature of injury has not been
challenged specifically by the defence. There is
no material contradiction in the description of
the occurrence as appearing in the testimony of
the two eye-witnesses of fact - say P.W.-1
Hardwari
and
P.W.-2
Satyaveer.
Their
testimony on the whole inspires confidence.

25. We also notice that two defence
witnesses have also been examined in this
case. D.W.1 Rewati Singh, is scribe of the
F.I.R.
and
he
has
testified
in
his
examination-in-chief that some quarrel
took place between Hardwari and other
villagers.
Hardwari
asked
him
to
accompany him to the police station and at
the police station 'Daroga Ji' dictated the
F.I.R., which was scribed by this witness.
He has categorically stated that Hardwari
did not dictate the F.I.R. and there is
enmity between the accused and the
488 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
informant side and due to this 'Daroga Ji'
had involved the accused in this case.
However, in his cross examination, he has
categorically
stated that Hardwari
is
resident of his village and he has admitted
fact that it was dictated by Hardwari. He
has categorically stated that "मुझसे तहर र
प्लखवाई थ " however he has denied the
suggestion that it is incorrect to say that the
report, which he scribed was dictated by
Hardwari. Although he has further denied
suggestion that it is incorrect to say that he
did not write the F.I.R. at the instance of
'Daroga Ji'. In the last paragraph of his
testimony, he has denied the suggestion
that he wrote the F.I.R., at the instance of
Hardwari.

26. In this regard, we also come
across
the
testimony
of
the
Police
Constable P.W.6 Nihal Singh. He has
categorically stated regarding the fact of
lodging of the F.I.R. that on 12.11.2004,
when he was posted at Police Station -
Palimukeempur as Head Muharrir, he
prepared the Check F.I.R. on the basis of
written report (Ext. Ka-1) and has proved
the F.I.R. as Ext. Ka-5. He has further
testified that on the basis of the entry made
in the Check F.I.R., he made a reference of
the same in the General Diary at Rapat No.
29 at 6:20 P.M. on 12.11.2004 and has
proved the concerned General Diary as as
Ext. Ka-6. He has been cross examined,
wherein he has testified to the ambit that
Hardwari was accompanied by the injuredSatyaveer, Pappu, Charan Singh, etc. and
the written report was brought at the police
station and he had seen the injuries of the
injured at that point of time. He has been
suggested only to the ambit that it is
incorrect to say that at the instance of S.O.,
he
lodged
an
ante-time
F.I.R.
The
testimony of P.W.-6 as above would
indicate that the testimony of D.W.-1 is
absolutely false and it appears that he was
initially a prosecution witness and has been
won over by the accused, therefore, he is
not telling truth. No suggestion has been
made to P.W.6 by the defence that the
written report Ext. Ka-1 was in fact written
at the dictation of 'Daroga Ji ' by D.W.1 at
the police station. The another defence
witness is D.W.-2 Tara Chand. He is stated
to be an eye witness of the occurrence in
the F.I.R., but he did not name the accused
to have seen him on the spot, at the time of
the occurrence. He says that when he came
out of his house, the assailants had fled
away. Therefore, his testimony also does
not create any doubt regarding the
occurrence. The presence of both the
injured witness and the informant on the
spot is most natural.

27. The testimony of P.W.-1 and
P.W.-2 is most clinching, consistent and
inspiring confidence and it corroborates the
occurrence in material particulars leaving
aside element of doubt.

28. The site-plan prepared by the
Investigating Officer Ext.Ka-7 is also
indicative of fact as to the very place,
where the occurrence took place and the
crime was committed and it fixes with
certainty the other places specifically
marked as the place of presence of the
informant at place-B where the informant
was stated to be standing and the victim
was standing under the 'sheesham' tree at
place marked by word "X". This site plan
has also not been challenged specifically by
the defence. Therefore, the very place of
commission of crime is satisfactorily
proved by the prosecution.

29. After considering the entirety of
this case, we unhesitatingly hold that the
prosecution has successfully proved its case
11 All. Udai Bhan Vs. State of U.P.
489
beyond all reasonable doubt against the
present appellant- Ram Khilari and the
testimony of the prosecution witnesses -
both fact and formal is consistent and
clinching and inspires confidence. The trial
court took correct view of the entire
occurrence and has properly scrutinized,
appraised and analyzed facts and law in
right perspective.

30. It is established principles of
criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution
is required to prove its case beyond all
reasonable doubt and the burden of proof to
establish the charge is always on the
prosecution and in this case the prosecution
has successfully prove the charges against
the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt
and the appellant was rightly convicted
under aforesaid charges and was sentenced
condignly.

31. Accordingly, the judgment and
order
dated
09.07.2012
passed
by
Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 6,
Aligarh, in Session Trial No.450 of 2006,
arising out of Case Crime No.126 of 2004
(State vs. Ram Khilari and another), under
Sections - 307, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3(2)(v)
of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989,
is hereby upheld. Consequently, the instant
appeal lacks merit and the same is
dismissed.

32. In this case, the appellant is in jail,
he shall serve out the sentence as awarded
by the trial court.

33. Let a copy of this judgment/order
be certified to the court concerned for
necessary information and follow up
action.
----------
(2020)11ILR A489
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.10.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 3658 of 2002
connected with
Criminal Appeal No. 3917 of 2002
connected with
Criminal Appeal No. 3960 of 2002

Udai Bhan ...Appellant (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri K.D. Tiwari, Sri Sunil Kumar, Sri Sunil
Singh, Sri Vikas Sharma Amicus

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A., Sri Sanjay Tripathi

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,1860 -
Sections 147, 148, 302/149 - Criminal
appeals have been filed against the
conviction under

Criminal Conspiracy
Offence of criminal conspiracy is agreement
between two or more persons to do an illegal
act. (Para 40)

There are neither any circumstantial evidence
nor any prior meeting of mind of accused
proved, nor any action individual or in concert,
proved against the appellant.

Conviction and sentence of the appellant by the
trial court set aside. (Para44)

Appeal Allowed. (E-2)

List of Cases cited:-

1. John Pandian Vs State represented by
Inspector of Police,Tamil Nadu, reported in
(2010) 14 SCC 129