# Ram Pheran & Ors v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2026) 2 ILRA 74
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-02-16
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 534 of 1995
- **Bench:** Rajnish Kumar, Zafeer Ahmad
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-pheran-ors-v-state-of-u-p-54848
- **Pages:** 10

## Text

74 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
present case, is not enough to convict the accused, in the absence of corroborative evidence as held by the
Honble Apex Court in the case of Govind Vs. State of Haryana reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2456.

80. In view of foregoing discussions, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to
prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts against the appellant and the findings recorded by the trial court
convicting the appellant and sentencing him for the offence charged with is therefore set aside by allowing
the appeal.

81. In the result, the instant criminal appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment
and order dated 19.01.1984 passed by the trial court is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all the charges
and he be set free forthwith, if not wanted in any other case, subject to the compliance of Section 437-A of
Cr.P.C. to the satisfaction of the trial court.

82. Let a copy of this judgment and order be forwarded to the trial court alongwith trial court record for
information and necessary compliance.

(HON'BLE RAJIV GUPTA, J.
&
HON'BLE DEVENDRA SINGH-I, J.)

1. Shri Vishesh Kumar, Advocate was appointed an Amicus Curiae to argue the instant criminal appeal
on behalf of the appellant. He has rendered valuable assistance to the Court.

2. The Court quantified Rs. 15,000/- to be paid to Shri Vishesh Kumar towards fees for the able
assistance provided by him in hearing of the instant criminal appeal.

3. The said fees shall be paid to him by the Registry of this Court within a period of one month from
today.
----------
(2026) 2 ILRA 74
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 16.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J.
THE HON'BLE ZAFEER AHMAD, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 534 of 1995

Ram Pheran & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Issue for consideration
2 All. Ram Pheran & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
75
The matter pertains to a criminal appeal against a conviction under section, 498-A, 304-B/ 302/34 of the IPC,
where the appellant was accused of dowry death (strangulation and subsequent burning) of his wife over
dowry demands.

Headnotes
A. Criminal law-Indian Penal Code,1860-Sections 498-A, 304-B/ 302/34-Criminal Procedure
Code,1973-Section 374(2)-Dowry death Vs. Murder-Circumstantial evidence-Deceased found
extensively burnt in matrimonial home-Medical evidence (PW-4) revealing death by asphyxia
due to strangulation prior to burning-Absence of carbon particles in the trachea and a fractured
hyoid bone are definitive indicators of death by strangulation prior to burning-Harassment for
dowry of Rs. 1000 established by testimony of father(PW-1) and brother (PW-2)-Plea o alibi by
husband and mother-in-law rejected as it contradicted the initial information given by the
father-in-law admitting their presence-Hence, a false plea of alibi in a case of custodial death in
a matrimonial home serves as an additional link in the chain of circumstantial evidenceAppellant no. 2 released by the Governor on remission after serving over 24 years-While
conviction and sentence are confirmed, the appellant is not required to surrender to undergo the
remaining sentence as the constitutional power of remission remains untouched by the court's
judgment.(Para 24 to 34)
Held
The court held that the deceased was strangulated to death before being set on fire to stage a suicide or
accident. Evidence showed a fractured hyoid bone and absence of sooty particles in the trachea, confirming
the burns occurred post-death. The appellants' plea of alibi was discarded due to their own contradictory
statement. The court upheld the conviction, finding the chain of circumstantial evidence complete. Since the
Governor already granted remission under Article 161, the surviving appellant is not required to surrender to
serve the remaining life sentence. (E-6)

Case law Cited
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116, Anwar Ali & Anr Vs State of Himachal
Pradesh (2020) 10 SCC 166, Union of India Vs sriharan: 2016 (7) SCC 1, Suresh Yadav Vs State of
Chhatisgarh; (2022) 19 SCC 469-referred to.

List of Acts
Indian Penal Code,1860
Criminal Procedure Code,1973

List of Keywords
Cruelty, Common Intention, Dowry , Dowry death, remission, Governor , Examination of accused, Murder,
Asphyxia, Strangulation, Hyoid Bone fracture, Sooty particles, Post mortem burns, Carotid Arteries, Laceration,
Plea of Alibi, Panchseel principles, Circumstantial evidence,Abatement, Inquest Proceedings.

Case Arising from
 CRIMINAL JURISDICTION: CRIMINAL APPEAL No.- 534 OF 1995
 Ram Pheran & Ors Vs. State of U.P.
From the judgment and order dated 16.02.2026 of the High Court of judicature at Allahabad.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for Appellant(s) :-
H.P. Pathak, M.P. Yadav
Adv. for Respondent(s):-
G.A.,

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar, J.)
76 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(1) Heard Sri M.P. Yadav, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Pawan Kumar Mishra,
learned AGA for the State.

(2) The instant Criminal Appeal has been filed assailing the judgment and order dated
25.08.1995, passed in Sessions Trial No.498/1994 (The State versus Ram Pheran and Others) by
the Sessions Judge, Gonda, arising out of Case Crime No.29/94, under Sections 498-A/ 304-B/ 302
read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code(hereinafter referred to as IPC) and Section 3/5 of Dowry
Prohibition Act (hereinafter referred as D.P. Act), Police Station Harraiya, District Gonda, by
means of which the appellants have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC
and Section 498-A IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life under Section
302 read with Section 34 IPC and to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 498-A
IPC alongwith a fine of Rs.1000/- payable by each of them and in default of payment of fine, to
undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. It has further been provided that all the
sentences shall run concurrently.

(3) The prosecution story, in short, is that Smt. Meena Devi, daughter of Moti Lal was married
to the appellant no.2 Mansha Ram, resident of Village Sonpur, Police Station Harraiya, District
Gonda in the year 1989. The accused Ram Pheran is the husband of the accused Smt. Maharani.
They are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased. The accused persons used to demand
Rs.1,000/- as dowry from the deceased and harass her on account of non-fulfillment of their
demand. It was further alleged that, since the marriage of the brother of the deceased was scheduled
to take place on 23.06.1994, her brother Ram Chandra had come to take her on 19.06.1994.
However, she was not sent with Ram Chandra, the brother of the deceased and he was forced to
return without her. He was told that if the amount of dowry of Rs.1000/- would not be paid, his
sister would face dire consequences. In the midnight between19.06.1994 and 20.06.1994, the
deceased was allegedly burnt by the appellants, on account of non-fulfillment of their demand of
dowry. The written F.I.R. was given at Police Station Harraiya on 20.06.1994 at about 04:45 p.m.
by Moti Lal, the father of the deceased. On the basis of the said written report, Chick F.I.R. was
prepared and case was registered against all the three accused/appellants at Crime No.29/94, under
Sections 498-A/ 304-B I.P.C., entry of which was also made in the GD, a copy of which is on
record.

(4) As borne out from the records, before the aforesaid F.I.R. was lodged by Moti Lal on
20.06.1994, a written information had been furnished by the accused/appellant Ram Pheran at
Police Station Harraiya on 20.06.1994 at about 8:05 a.m., intimating therein about the death of his
daughter-in-law on account of burning. This information was entered in the GD at Serial No.10, a
copy of which is on record. Accordingly, the process was undertaken for inquest proceedings of the
dead body on the basis of said information at 2:00 p.m. Thereafter, the dead body was sent for post
mortem examination, which was conducted on 22.06.1994 at about 1:00 p.m. in the mortuary,
Gonda. The Investigating Officer prepared the site plan of the spot, took into his custody the dhibri,
prepared Naksha Lash and on completion of the investigation, he submitted the charge sheet
against all the three accused persons on 16.09.1994 under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 201 IPC. The
cognizance was taken by learned Magistrate. Thereafter the matter was committed to the session.
The Session Court framed the charges against all the accused persons i.e. the appellants under
2 All. Ram Pheran & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
77
Section 304-B, 498-A and Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC as well as Section 3/5 D.P. Act, to
which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

(5) In order to prove it's case, the prosecution examined P.W.1; Moti Lal, the informant and
father of the deceased, P.W.2 Ram Chandra; brother of the deceased, P.W. 3 Pawan Kumar, P.W. 4
Dr. Ashok Kumar, who conducted the post mortem examination, P.W.5 Constable Mishri Lal, who
took the dead body for post mortem examination, P.W.6 S.I. R.K. Chaudhary, who conducted the
inquest proceedings of the dead body, P.W.7 Pradeep Kumar; Investigating Officer of the case and
P.W.8 Head Constable Ram Sewak to prove the information furnished by Ram Pheran. The
prosecution also placed on record certain documentary evidences and proved the same.

(6) Thereafter, the statements of the accuseds under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded, in
which they denied the allegations. They stated that the marriage had taken place nine years back
and a wrong post mortem report had been obtained, on account of extraneous consideration.
According to the accused Ram Pheran, his wife Smt. Maharani and son Mansha Ram i.e. husband
of the deceased were not present at the time of incident, as they were in village Padam Chakki,
situated at a distance of about two and a half kilometers from the place of incident. He stated that
he alone was present and was sleeping at the door of the house at a distance of about 250 kasies.
When the deceased caught fire and raised an alarm, the villagers, particularly the women assembled
there. However, he did not enter into the house, as the deceased was his daughter-in-law. Similar
pleas of absence were taken by the accused appellants Mansha Ram and his mother Smt. Maharani.
The defence examined D.W.1; Rameshwar Prasad and D.W.2; Krishna Mohan, particularly to
prove that the appellants Smt. Maharani and Mansha Ram were not in the house at the time of
incident.

(7) The learned trial court, thereafter after hearing learned counsels for the parties and
considering the evidence and material on record, acquitted the appellants under Section 304-B IPC
and 3/5 D.P.Act on the ground that the charges under the said sections could not be proved and
convicted the appellants under Section 498-A and Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Hence,
this appeal has been filed.

(8) During pendency of appeal, the appellants no.1 and 3 have died, therefore, this appeal
stands abated on their behalf. Now this appeal survives only on behalf of the appellant no.2.

(9) We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

(10) In-disputedly, the death of Meena Devi, a young lady of 18 years of age and married to
the accused Mansha Ram, had taken place in the intervening of 19/20.6.1994 inside the house of
the appellants (accused) in Village Sonpur, on account of excessive burning. The father-in-law of
the deceased, who is father of the appellant Mansha Ram, submitted a written report on 20.06.1994
at 8:05 a.m.(Ex Ka-16), intimating therein that a son had been born to his younger brother Kamta
Prasad on 19.06.1994 and in celebration thereof, the ladies of the family were playing musical
instruments and singing. He, his brother Kamta Prasad and son Mansha Ram were sleeping outside
of the house. After the singing and playing of instruments, his daughter-in-law, wife of Mansha
Ram was going to sleep, who had glowing lamp(dhibri) of glass in her hand. When she reached
78 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
near the door, the flame from the lamp caught her terricot saree and she started burning. On the
alarm raised by her, they ran and reached the spot. By that time, the daughter-in-law was
extensively burnt and lying unconscious. They tried to extinguish the fire but by that time, she died.
This incident occurred at about 1:00 a.m. in the night between 19/20.06.1994. As there was no
arrangement in the night, therefore, he has sent Triveni @ Teja son of Rajkumar Mishr and Krishna
Mohan Tiwari son of Ram Surat Tiwari to the parental house of the daughter-in-law to inform them
and thereafter he has come to the police station to give the information.

(11) In view of above, admittedly, the appellants were present at the time of the incident, in
which the deceased died on account of burning. However, during trial, they took the plea that only
the complainant Ram Pheran was present at the spot, whereas Mansha Ram; the husband of the
deceased and his mother i.e. wife of the complainant; Smt. Maharani were not present and had gone
to village Padam Chakki. To prove it, they took this defence in their statements under Section 313
C.r.P.C. and also produced two defence witnesses.

(12) D.W.1; Rameshwar Prasad stated that at about 12:30 p.m. in the night, he heard the noise
that there is a fire, then he went to the house of Mansha Ram and found that his wife was burning
and the persons present were trying to extinguish the fire by the cotton and clothes. At that time,
Mansha Ram and Maharani were not present at home,as they had gone to Village Padam Chakki,
which is at a distance of about 8-9 kms from Sonpur. Ram Pheran was at his house, at about 250300 steps in the south. He also stated that Mansha Ram and Maharani returned in the morning, on
the information given to them. He denied the suggestion that the appellants had killed the deceased
on account of dowry demand.

(13) D.W.2; Krishna Mohan also stated that about 1 year two months back, at about 12:001:00 a.m., he heard the noise that the house of Ram Pheran is burning. He ran towards his house
and found that the daughter-in-law of Ram Pheran was burning and whoever reached there was
trying to extinguish the fire. At that time, Mansha Ram and Maharani were not present at the house.
Subsequently, he came to know that they had gone to village Padam Chakki, which is about 5-6
kms. away from Village Sonpur. He, in his cross examination, has admitted that he has affinity
with Ram Pheran, the complainant.

(14) The evidence given by D.W.1 and D.W.2 is contrary to the information given by the
complainant i.e. the appellant Ram Pheran on 20.06.1994 (Ex. Ka-16) at 8:05 in the morning at the
Police Station Harraiya, District Gonda, wherein he admitted that he, alongwith his son and brother
Kamta Prasad was sleeping outside the house, therefore, the plea of alibi taken by the appellants is
an after thought, and the evidence of D.W.1 and D.W.2 is not reliable. Even otherwise, they are not
eye witnesses.

(15) The learned trial court, after considering the evidence and material on record, recorded
that the plea of absence required strict proof thereof, which could not be done. D.W.1 and D.W.2
were not found worthy of placing any credence, as they made efforts to state a fact against the own
admission of accused Ram Pheran, who had himself admitted his presence at the relevant time and
the plea of alibi of Smt. Maharani also could not be proved and discarded the plea. This Court is in
agreement with the view taken by the learned trial court. Now this Court has to see as to how the
2 All. Ram Pheran & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
79
deceased died and the cause of death and under the circumstances, the appellants could only have
the perpetrators of crime.

(16) Dr. Ashok Kumar, who appeared as P.W.4, proved the post mortem report (Ex. Ka-2). He
found that inner and middle coats of carotid arteries were found lacerated with extravasation of
blood within their walls. The cornu of hyoid (left comu) was found broken (fractured). The body
was of a young lady of average built and muscularity with both eyes proptosed and mouth semi
opened. Whole body was burnt except both feet and both soles. Scalp haris were also diarred. Smell
of kerosene was found present on the body and clothes. Abdomen was burst open and the
abdominal contents were coming out. Small to medium sized maggots were found present on the
body. Occasional blisters were also found present on the body, which were containing air only. As
per the post mortem report, the following anti mortem injuries were found:-

"Post mortem burn of face, head, neck, trunks and both extremities including perinium
except both soles and both feet. There was no line of redness. Occasional vesications containing air
with their bases hard, dry and yellow. No reparative process was found present. It has further been
recorded that the larynx were marked by congested mucosa. No sooty particles were found present
in trachea of bronchitis. Both lungs were found markedly congested showing haemorrhage i.e.
petechiae and exuding dark fluid blood on section. Emphysematous patches on the surface of lungs
were also found present. The cause of death was due to asphyxia on account of strangulation."

(17) He opined that the death of the deceased had occurred in the night of 19/20.6.1994. He
stated that he alongwith his companion Dr. P.K. Agarwal, found the cause of death was
strangulation and thereafter burning of the dead body, which was different than the reason given in
the inquest report, therefore, he wrote a letter dated 22.06.1994 to the Superintendent of Police in
this regard and as per the directions received, the post mortem was conducted in the presence of
Chief Medical Officer by him and his companion Dr. P.K. Agarwal. He proved the letter written to
the Superintendent of Police (Ex. Ka-3). He proved the report written on the said letter by the Chief
Medical Officer as Ex.Ka-4. In his cross examination, he stated that in his opinion, in the living
status, if the dead body is burnt of a living person, then certain particles of carbon necessarily go in
the wind pipe, which is called sooty particles. However, in the present case, the wind pipe was
congested from inside, which, according to him is reason of death by strangulation. He further
stated that the blood was not deposited in the lungs on account of hue because no sooti particles
had gone inside. He also stated that the hyoid bone was fractured. He also stated that hyoid bone
cannot be fractured in case of pressure at the time of burning. He stated that the dead body of the
deceased was about 90% burnt. Thus, it is proved that the deceased had already died before
burning.

(18) In view of above, it has been proved that the deceased was killed, thereafter, she was
burnt after pouring kerosene oil on her to give it a colour of suicide.

(19) P.W.1, i.e. the complainant, has stated that the appellants used to demand Rs.1000/- as
dowry and since he was not in a position to pay the amount, they used to beat his daughter and they
also do not give food to her. He also stated that the marriage of his son Shiv Dayal, was fixed for
23.06.1994, therefore, he had sent his another son Ram Chandra on 19.06.1994 to invite her and
80 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
bring her home, but she was not sent on the ground that the complainant has not given Rs.1,000/- as
demanded by the appellants. He proved the F.I.R. lodged by him. He further stated that on the next
day, while he was preparing for going to the house of his daughter's in-laws, he received the
information regarding her death. Thereafter he went to the house of his in-laws, where he found her
dead body and also came to know that her daughter has been killed, therefore, he gave a written
complaint i.e. Paper No.4/2 for lodging the F.I.R. He proved the same as Ex. Ka-1. In the cross
examination, he stated that in the room of her daughter he had not found any burnt article except
the clothes of his daughter. Her face was also burnt. Besides her saree, six-seven other sarees were
found burnt. The dead body was near the cot, where she used to sleep. He denied the suggestion
that her daughter had died her natural death.

(20) P.W.2 Ram Chandra, the brother of the deceased has also stated that the appellants used
to demand Rs.1,000/-. He also stated that he does not know as to whether his father had given the
same or not. He further stated that the marriage of his brother was fixed in the month of June 1994,
therefore, he had gone to bring his sister on 19.06.1994 but she was not sent on account of nonpayment of Rs.1,000/-. He further stated that he was also told that if the money was not paid, then
the life of the girl would be in danger. He had also met his sister Meena, who told him that the
appellants used to harass her for the money and if the money would not be given, her life would be
in danger. She had also informed that they do not give her food. He had made request for sending
his sister but they told that she would not be sent, unless the money was paid. On 20.06.1994, he
came to know about the death of his sister. In the cross examination, nothing could be extracted,
which may create any doubt about the veracity of the evidence given by P.W.2. All the other
witnesses, who proved lodging of F.I.R., inquest report, taking the body for post mortem and the
investigation, but nothing could be extracted from them, which may create even a single doubt in
their evidence.

(21) The learned trial court, after considering the post mortem examination report and the
testimony of P.W.4 Dr. Ashok Kumar, has recorded a finding that at first the deceased was
strangulated and thereafter she was set ablaze by sprinkling kerosene oil in attempt to conceal the
evidence and to give different version of story. Not only hyoid bone was found fractured but there
were no sooty particles found in trachea and bronchitis though there was smell of kerosene oil on
the body with absence of redness in the injury which alongwith the symptoms as mentioned in the
post mortem, indicates clearly that the burns were post death and that the lady had already died on
account of strangulation.

(22) On the basis of above, learned trial court has found that the charges under Section 498 A
IPC and Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC have been found proved against all the three accused
i.e. the appellants, as the deceased was subjected to cruelty soon before her death by her father-inlaw, husband and mother-in-law and they committed murder of Smt. Meena by strangulating her
with a common intention and thereafter setting her on fire, after sprinkling kerosene oil and
convicted accordingly. However, the learned trial court acquitted the appellants from the charges
under Section 304-B IPC and Section 3/5 of D.P. Act, as the charges under the said provisions have
not been found proved. The said part of the judgment has not been assailed by either the State or
the complainant.
2 All. Ram Pheran & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
81

(23) This Court is in agreement with the findings recorded by the trial court and the conclusion
drawn. On giving thoughtful consideration to the evidence and material on record, this Court also
finds that the deceased was subjected to harassment soon before her death and even she was not
being given food. She was killed by strangulation and on account of her harassment, even her hyoid
bone was fractured. Thereafter to give colour of suicide, she was burnt by pouring kerosene oil on
her.

(24) In the facts and circumstances of the case, and upon considering the case in hand on the
touch stone of five golden principles of circumstantial evidence enumerated in the case of Sharad
Birdichand Sarda versus State of Maharashtra; (1984) 4 SCC 116, the appellants, who were
present at the time of crime could only have committed the crime. The plea of alibi of the husband
and mother of deceased by the defence could not be proved as discussed above. The relevant
paragraphs 153 and 154 of Sharad Birdichand Sarda (supra) judgment are extracted here-inbelow:

"153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be
fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established:

(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully
established.
It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned "must or should"
and not "may be" established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between "may
be proved" and "must be or should be proved" as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao
Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, where the following observations were made:

"Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty
before a court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and
divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions."

(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of
the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the
accused is guilty,

(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency,

(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and

(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground
for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human
probability the act must have been done by the accused.

154. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheet of the
proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence."
82 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(25) The aforesaid has been followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anwar Ali
and Another versus State of Himachal Pradesh (2020) 10 SCC 166.

(26) The aforesaid golden principles still hold the field and upon testing a case appropriately
on the said principles and conclusions arrived thereupon, there cannot be any doubt about the
conclusions and the conclusions cannot be said to be erroneous or perverse.

(27) In view of above and considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this
Court does not find any illegality or error in the conviction of the appellants.

(28) The learned trial court has awarded the punishment of life imprisonment under Section
302 read with Section 34 IPC and further sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for one year each under Section 498 IPC besides a fine of Rs.1000/- payable by each
of the accused and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month
further. This Court does not find any illegality or error in the sentence and fine awarded to the
appellants. However, the appellant no.1 Ram Pheran and appellant no.3 Smt. Maharani have died.
Thus, appeal on their behalf has already abated.

(29) The appellant no.1 was released on 08.09.2000 in pursuance of Government Order
No.1951/22-2-2000-18(75/2000 dated 11.8.2000), on account of completion of 60 years of age and
three years of period of incarceration with remission. Appellant No.2 Mansha Ram has been
released on 22.02.2019 in compliance of Government Order No.1014/22-2-2019-17 (519)/ 2019
dated 15.02.2019 on remission granted by His/Her Excellency the Governor of Uttar Pradesh under
Article 161 of Constitution of India and Government Order No.82/Provation-6/144 dated
20.02.2019 of IG, Jail Administration and Reforms Department, U.P., Lucknow. The appeal on
behalf of appellant no.1 has already abated.

(30) Now the question arises as to whether the appellant no.2 is liable to be sent again to jail to
serve out remaining sentence or not in view of remission granted to him by the Governor under
Article 161 of the Constitution of India.

(31) This Court is of the view that the punishment awarded to the appellants was sufficient and
commensurate to the crime committed by the appellants. However, the appellant no.2 has been
released on remission after completion of 24 years 6 months 5 days of incarceration and 29 years
11 months 15 days with remission, therefore, he is not required to surrender to undergo the
remaining period of sentence because upholding of conviction and dismissal of appeal confirming
sentence will not affect the order passed by Governor under Article 161 of Constitution of India.
However, it cannot affect the power of this Court to decide the appeal and take decision in regard to
conviction and sentence.

(32) The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Union of India versus Sriharan; 2016 (7)
SCC 1, has held that right to claim remission, commutation, reprieve etc. as provided under Article
72 or Article 161 of the Constitution will always be available being constitutional remedies
untouchable by the Court.
2 All. Ali Hasan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
83

(33) The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Suresh Yadav versus State of Chhatisgarh;
(2022) 19 SCC 469, in which the appellant was released on remission by the Government and the
conviction was upheld, held that dismissal of the appeal shall not be of any adverse effect on such
exercise of power of remission by the State Government because under Article 161 of the
Constitution of India, the Governor of a State has a power to grant remissions of punishment of any
person convicted of any offence against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power
of the State extends. The relevant paragraph 11 is extracted hereinbelow:-

As per the office report and the custody certificate placed before us, it appears that on
07.09.2019, the appellant, after having served the sentence of imprisonment for a period of 15 years
9 months and 27 days, was released under Section 432 Cr.P.C. by the Government of Chhatisgarh.
Having regard to the circumstances, we make it clear that dismissal of the appeal shall not be of
any adverse effect on such exercise of power of remission by the Government of chhatisgarh.

(34) In view of above and considering overall facts and circumstances of case, the appeal is
dismissed, upholding the conviction and confirming the sentence awarded by the learned trial
court. However, in view of the fact that the appellant no.2 has been released on remission granted
by the Governor under Article 161 of the Constitution of India, he is not required to surrender to
undergo the remaining period of sentence.

(35) Let a copy of this judgment alongwith the Trial Court's record be sent back forthwith and
in any case within a period of one week from today.
----------
(2026) 2 ILRA 83
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 2044 of 1983

Ali Hasan & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Issue for consideration
The matter pertains to a criminal appeal against a dacoity conviction where seven named co-villagers
allegedly committed dacoity at Dhanpal's house, looting cash and ornaments while injuring his mother and
sisters.

Headnotes
Criminal law- Indian Penal Code,1860-Sections 395, 397-Criminal Procedure Code,1973-Section
374(2)-Dacoity and attempt to cause death-Inconsistent ocular testimony vs. medical evidence-
Testimonies from related witnesses (PW-1, PW-2, PW3) contained significant discrepancies
regarding number of dacoits, whether their faces were covered and the specific weapons