# Ram Sajeewan & Ors v. State of U.P. 572 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

- **Citation:** (2025) 11 ILRA 571
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-11-14
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No1459 of 2004
- **Bench:** Pramod Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-sajeewan-ors-v-state-of-u-p-572-indian-law-reports-allahabad-series-54888
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

G.A.

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether the prosecution has
proved the ingredients of offences under Ss.
363 and 366 IPC, particularly age of the victim,
enticement/inducement,
and
lawful
guardianship, and whether the appellants are
entitled to the benefit of S. 4 of the Probation of
Offenders Act, 1958.

Headnotes
Criminal Appeal - Conviction under Ss. 363
and 366 IPC - Challenge - Appreciation of
evidence - Scope - Kidnapping from lawful
guardianship - Proof of age - Medical
evidence - Family register not proved -
Reliance on medical opinion justified - S.
366 IPC - Enticement and inducement -
Evidence of victim and eye-witness -
Credibility - S. 376 IPC - Acquittal - Appeal
confined to Ss. 363 and 366 IPC -
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 - S. 4 -
Applicability - Age of accused - Long
passage of time - No criminal antecedents
- Sentence modified.

Held: The age of the victim was proved by
PW-4 Dr. Reeta Raman and PW-6 Dr. S.L.
Sharma, who stated that the victim was about
16-17 years - The family register relied upon
by the defence was not proved in accordance
with law, therefore, reliance on medical
evidence was proper - Evidence of PW-1
(mother), PW-2 (victim) and PW-3 (eyewitness Babadeen) establishes that on the
behest of appellants Ram Sajeewan and Smt.
Kevala, the victim was enticed and induced
and taken away by co-accused Budhai - "From
the cross-examination of the witnesses of
fact, no such cogent material had been
emerged
out
by
virtue
of
which
the
prosecution story could be falsified" - The
appellants were rightly acquitted under S. 376
IPC, but the offences under Ss. 363 and 366
IPC were duly proved -Considering that the
incident occurred in 1995, appellants are 70
and
65
years
old,
have
no
criminal
antecedents, and have suffered for about 30
years, the benefit of S. 4 of the Probation of
Offenders Act, 1958 was granted while
maintaining conviction - Sentence modified -
Appellants directed to execute personal bonds
of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each, to
maintain peace and good behaviour for two
years - Conviction under Ss. 363 and 366 IPC
is sustainable and does not suffer from any
illegality or perversity. (Paras 10, 18-24, 3033) (E-7)

Case Law Cited
Jagat Pal Singh & others vs. State of Haryana,
AIR 2000 SC 3622

List of Acts
Indian Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973; Probation of Offenders Act,

## Text

11 All. Ram Sajeewan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
571
complainant was present at that time or at
the time of inquest. The appellant was
arrested at 10:40 AM on 08.07.2015. Arrest
memo is signed by him also. The cloth
string was recovered on the pointing of the
appellant from the heap of garbage near his
house. Recovery memo is also signed by
the appellant. The site plans prepared by
the Investigating Officer also indicate that
the room, in which the deceased was killed,
was inside the house and the complainant
was sleeping outside the room and as per
the version of the F.I.R., upon hearing the
voice of her daughter; Shivani, the
complainant went inside the room, where
her husband was killing her daughter by
gagging her neck from cloth string and the
heap of garbage from where the cloth
string was recovered. These documentary
evidences have been proved by the
investigating officer as P.W.-6 and
nothing could be extracted from him in
cross-examination, which may create any
doubt about his testimony. Thus, the
recovery stands proved under Section 27
of Evidence Act. The inquest and the post
mortem and injuries have been proved by
the concerned witnesses. Thus, all the
relevant facts showing killing of the
daughter of the appellant by him are
proved and, admittedly, he was in the
house at the time of death of his daughter,
therefore, the burden under Section 106
of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was on
him to prove as to how his daughter had
died, which he has failed to prove. The
post mortem report, which has been
proved by the doctor, who had conducted
the post mortem, and the injuries shown
therein also prove as to how the deceased
was killed.

(39) In view of above and considering
over all facts and circumstances of the case,
this Court is of the view that the learned
trial Court has rightly and in accordance
with law has held that the prosecution has
proved the offence of Section 302 I.P.C.
against the accused i.e. the appellant
beyond reasonable doubt and convicted
him and after affording opportunity of
hearing,
sentenced
him
with
life
imprisonment and fine. This Court is in
agreement with the findings recorded by
the learned trial Court as well as the
conclusions drawn and nothing could be
pointed before this Court, on the basis of
which, any other view was possible in the
facts and circumstances of the case. This
appeal has been filed on misconceived and
baseless grounds, which is liable to be
dismissed.

(40) The appeal is, accordingly,
dismissed,
upholding
the
impugned
judgment and order passed by the learned
trial Court. The conviction of the appellant
for the offence punishable under Section
302 I.P.C. is upheld and the sentence
awarded to him under Section 302 I.P.C. is
confirmed.

(41) Let a copy of this judgment and
the original record be transmitted to the
Court concerned forthwith for necessary
information and compliance.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 571
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 14.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Criminal Appeal No1459 of 2004

Ram Sajeewan & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent
572 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Appellant:
Dileep Pandey, Gopesh Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A.

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether the prosecution has
proved the ingredients of offences under Ss.
363 and 366 IPC, particularly age of the victim,
enticement/inducement,
and
lawful
guardianship, and whether the appellants are
entitled to the benefit of S. 4 of the Probation of
Offenders Act, 1958.

Headnotes
Criminal Appeal - Conviction under Ss. 363
and 366 IPC - Challenge - Appreciation of
evidence - Scope - Kidnapping from lawful
guardianship - Proof of age - Medical
evidence - Family register not proved -
Reliance on medical opinion justified - S.
366 IPC - Enticement and inducement -
Evidence of victim and eye-witness -
Credibility - S. 376 IPC - Acquittal - Appeal
confined to Ss. 363 and 366 IPC -
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 - S. 4 -
Applicability - Age of accused - Long
passage of time - No criminal antecedents
- Sentence modified.

Held: The age of the victim was proved by
PW-4 Dr. Reeta Raman and PW-6 Dr. S.L.
Sharma, who stated that the victim was about
16-17 years - The family register relied upon
by the defence was not proved in accordance
with law, therefore, reliance on medical
evidence was proper - Evidence of PW-1
(mother), PW-2 (victim) and PW-3 (eyewitness Babadeen) establishes that on the
behest of appellants Ram Sajeewan and Smt.
Kevala, the victim was enticed and induced
and taken away by co-accused Budhai - "From
the cross-examination of the witnesses of
fact, no such cogent material had been
emerged
out
by
virtue
of
which
the
prosecution story could be falsified" - The
appellants were rightly acquitted under S. 376
IPC, but the offences under Ss. 363 and 366
IPC were duly proved -Considering that the
incident occurred in 1995, appellants are 70
and
65
years
old,
have
no
criminal
antecedents, and have suffered for about 30
years, the benefit of S. 4 of the Probation of
Offenders Act, 1958 was granted while
maintaining conviction - Sentence modified -
Appellants directed to execute personal bonds
of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each, to
maintain peace and good behaviour for two
years - Conviction under Ss. 363 and 366 IPC
is sustainable and does not suffer from any
illegality or perversity. (Paras 10, 18-24, 3033) (E-7)

Case Law Cited
Jagat Pal Singh & others vs. State of Haryana,
AIR 2000 SC 3622

List of Acts
Indian Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973; Probation of Offenders Act,
1958.

List of Keywords
Enticement; inducement; lawful guardianship;
medical examination; family register; benefit of
probation;
good
behaviour;
no
criminal
antecedent

Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal
Appeal No. 1459 of 2004 arising out of
judgment and order dated 15.06.2004 passed
by Special/Additional Sessions Judge, Raebareli
in Sessions Trial No. 793 of 1998, Case Crime
No. 1995, P.S. Deeh, District Raebareli.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellants:
Dileep Pandey, Gopesh Tripathi
Advs. for the Respondent:
G.A.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pramod Kumar
Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
appellants, Sri Sushil Kumar Pandey,
learned AGA for the State and perused the
record.

2. The present criminal appeal under
Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. has been filed by
the appellants, Ram Sajeewan and Smt.
11 All. Ram Sajeewan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
573
Kevala, against the judgment and order
dated
15.06.2004
passed
by
learned
Special/Additional Sessions Judge, District
Raebareli in Sessions Trial No. 793 of 1998
in Case Crime No. 1995, under Sections
363, 366, 376 IPC, Police Station Deeh,
District Raebareli, convicting the appellants
under Section 363 IPC to undergo 3 years
rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.
500/- and under Section 366 IPC 5 years
rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.
1000/- and both the sentences are directed
to run concurrently.

3. Factual matrix of the case is that
there is a house of appellant-Ram Sajeevan
in front of informant house, wherein
brother-in-law of Ram Sajeevan, namely,
Budhai was living from one and half month
and he often used to go in the house of
informant. On 11.02.1995 at about 06:00 to
07:00 p.m. on the behest of the appellants
Ram Sajeevan and his wife Smt. Kevala,
Budhai, who is brother-in-law of Ram
Sajeevan, enticed the informants minor
daughter, aged about 15 years and took her
away with intention to marry her. It is also
alleged that when Budhai was taking her
away, they were seen by the villager
Babadeen Kori and others.

4. In respect of the said incident, a
written
complaint,
Exhibit-Ka-1
was
submitted by the informant-Fulmati to the
SHO,
Police
Station
Deeh,
District
Raebareli. On that basis, FIR Exhibit Ka-4
lodged on 12.02.1995 against Budhai, Ram
Sajeevan and wife of Ram Sajeevan,
namely, Smt. Kevala, under Sections 363
and 366 IPC.

5. During the course of investigation,
medical examination of the victim was
conducted. Site plan of the place of
occurrence was prepared and statement of
the witnesses were recorded and after
collecting evidence, the chargesheet against
Ram Sajeewan and Smt. Kevala, under
Sections 363, 366 IPC had been filed.

6.
Finding
the
above
offence
exclusively triable by learned Sessions
Court, the copy of relevant documents had
been provided to the appellants and on
26.11.1998 the case was committed to the
sessions Court, from where this case was
transferred
in
the
court
of
Special
Judge/Additional
Sessions
Judge,
Raebareli. Before the trial court, the
appellants/accused persons appeared and
charge under Section 363, 366 and 376 IPC
was framed against them on 14.02.2000,
wherein they denied from the charge
levelled against them and claimed to be
tried.

7. From the side of prosecution, as
many as seven witnesses have been
examined.
PW-1
Phulmati
W/o
Devatadeen, PW-2 Pramila Devi and PW-3
Babadeen have proved the prosecution
case. PW-4 Dr. Reeta Raman, who has
conducted the medical examination of the
victim, PW-5 Ashok Kumar, who has
proved the FIR as Exhibit K-4, PW-6 S.L.
Sharma, PW-7 Ram Sundar Yadav who
had proved the site plan Exhibit Ka-6 and
chargesheet as Exhibit Ka-7.

8. After closing the evidence of
prosecution,
the
statement
of
the
appellants/accused
persons
have
been
recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.,
wherein they stated that they have falsely
been implicated and concocted evidence
has been produced against them.

9. In defence, they have not adduced
any ocular evidence but produced a copy of
Parivar register in their support.
574 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

10. After hearing the learned District
Government Advocate (Crl.) and learned
counsel for the appellants/accused persons,
the learned trial court passed the impugned
judgment dated 15.06.2004, wherein the
appellants, Ramsajeevan and Mrs. Kevala
were acquitted for the charge under Section
376 IPC levelled against them but in the
same order they have been convicted for
the offence under Section 363 and 366 IPC.

11. After hearing on sentence, the
learned trial court passed the sentence
against them under Sections 363, 366 IPC.

12.
Feeling
aggrieved
from
the
impugned judgment and order, appellants
have filed the instant criminal appeal on the
grounds that learned trial court has totally
failed to appreciate the evidence available
on record and passed the order in a very
arbitrary and cursory manner. No recovery
memo was prepared by the Investigating
Officer. Learned trial court did not pay
heed to consider the copy of family register
in respect of the age of the victim and put
its reliance on medical report in arbitrary
manner, though there is no single iota of
evidence against the appellants. Neither
motive is mentioned nor it is established
and due to rivalry of neighborhood, they
have falsely been implicated in this case.
The victim was recovered in Delhi where
she was not medically examined and
prosecution had failed to prove its case
beyond reasonable doubt but despite of the
aforesaid facts, the trial court has passed
the impugned judgment and order dated
15.06.2004 in a very cursory manner which
is not in consonance with the law and is
liable to be quashed. Therefore, the prayer
is made that this appeal may be allowed
and the impugned judgment and order may
be quashed.

13. Learned AGA has orally submitted
that during the course of investigation, all
the relevant material has been collected
against the appellants and finding them
sufficient, the chargesheet was filed against
them. He next submits that during the
course of trial, prosecution has adduced
sufficient evidence which is substantiated
by the eye witness account and proved its
case beyond reasonable doubt against the
appellants. He also submits that the learned
trial court, after considering the entire facts
and circumstances of the case in totality,
has found the appellants guilty for the
offence under Sections 363, 366 IPC and
consequently, sentenced the appellants.
Thus, the learned trial court did not commit
any illegality and there is no perversity in
the impugned judgment and order and,
thus, the instant appeal is devoid of merits
and is liable to be dismissed.

14. I have heard learned counsel for
the appellants and Sri Sushil Kumar
Pandey, learned AGA for the State as well
as perused the lower court record.

15. At the outset, it is expedient to
mention
that
initially
the
case
was
registered against the appellant and one
other co-accused, under Sections 363 and
366 IPC, wherein during the course of
investigation, the offence under Section
376 IPC was added and chargesheet was
filed only against the present appellants
under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC but
after conclusion of the trial, the learned
trial court has acquitted the appellants for
the offence under Section 376 IPC, thus,
this appeal is only for the charge under
Section 363 and 366 IPC for which they are
convicted. Before analyzing the said
evidence and to see whether offence under
the above-mentioned Sections are made out
11 All. Ram Sajeewan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
575
or not, it would be appropriate to refer here
the necessary ingredients of those offences.

16. For offence under Section 363
I.P.C., following ingredients are required to
be fulfilled:-

"(i) That the accused did:

(a)
Forceful
compulsion
or
inducement by deceitful means;

(b)
The
object
of
such
compulsion or inducement must be the
going of a person from any place;

(ii) That such kidnapping of any
person was done from India or from the
lawful guardianship."

17. As regards offence under Section
366 I.P.C., following ingredients are
required to be fulfilled:

"(i) Kidnapping or abducting of
any woman;

(ii) Such kidnapping or abducting
must be-

(i) with intent that she may be
compelled or knowing it to be likely that
she will be compelled to marry any person
against her will; or

(ii) in order that she may be
forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, or
knowing it to be likely that she will be
forced or seduced to illicit intercourse; or

(iii)
by
means
of
criminal
intimidation or otherwise by inducing any
woman to go from any place with intent
that she may be, or knowing that she will
be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse.

It is immaterial whether the
woman kidnapped is a married woman or
not. "

18. Now in the light of above
provisions, it is the duty cost upon the
prosecution that it had to prove that the
victim was below the age of 18 years and
she was compelled or induced by deceitful
means in order to seduce/intercourse or
other intent to marry against her will.

19. On perusal of the material
available on record, it transpires that the
prosecution has adduced witness Dr. Reeta
Raman as PW-4 who conducted the
medical examination of the victim in
respect of her age, who has stated in her
statement on oath that age of the victim
was
found
about
17
years,
while
radiologist, Dr. S.L. Sharma, who was
examined as PW-6, has stated that the age
of the victim was around 16-17 years at the
time of incident.

20. Surprisingly, the learned counsel
for the accused persons did not crossexamine them, though one copy of the
family register of the victim had been filed
towards accused persons but that was not
proved in accordance with the provisions of
the Evidence Act, therefore, the learned
trial court relied upon the medical evidence
and observed that the age of the victim was
below 18 years at the time of commission
of alleged offence. Thus, there is no any
perversity or illegality in the findings given
by the trial court in regard to the age of the
victim.

21. Now come to another question that
whether the ingredients of Sections 363 and
366 of IPC have been proved by the
prosecution by adducing cogent and
reliable evidence. In this regard, on perusal
576 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of the material available on record, it
reveals that the mother of the victim, who
was examined as PW-1, has stated that
house of the appellants is situated in front
of her house and brother-in-law of Ram
Sajeewan was living with appellant Ram
Sajeewan, who often used to come in the
house of the informant and during his visit,
he came into contact with informants
daughter. She further stated that on the
behest of Ram Sajeewan and his wife, coaccused Budhai enticed the daughter of
informant and took her away and they were
witnessed by the villagers Babadeen and
others.

22. In this regard, evidence of star
witness, the victim, who was examined as
PW-2, is most significant who has stated in
her examination that Budhai was a
widower
and
brother-in-law
of
the
appellant Ram Sajeewan and often used to
come in her house and stated her to marry
with him. She further stated that Ram
Sajeewan and his wife Kevala were also
used to come in her house and they also
used to convince her that if the marriage of
Budhai took place with her, then he will
keep her very happy in Delhi and a lot of
money, jewellary and domestic households
etc. will be given to her. She further stated
that when she told this conversation, made
by the appellants and Budhai, her mother
scolded them and resisted them to come in
her house. Despite this, the appellants were
always making efforts to marry the alleged
victim with Budhai. On the date of
incident, when the victim was going
outside for easing, the appellant Ram
Sajeewan, Kevala and co-accused Budhai
met her who enticed her and induced her.
The appellants Ram Sajeewan and Kevala
forcefully sent her with co-accused Budhai.
She further stated that Budhai took her
away in the bicycle and kept her in the
Mausis house where he committed rape
on her. On the very next day, Budhai took
her Lucknow where she tried to escape
from Budhai but he took away her away in
Aajadpur, where his brother was living in
one room, where Budhai committed rape
on her against her will and threatened her.
In this respect, statement of Babadeen, who
was the villager and is alleged to have seen
the occurrence, had been examined as
witness, who had stated that Budhai took
the victim in bicycle to marry her after
inducement. He categorically stated that he
has seen the incident through his naked
eye.

23. From the cross-examination of the
witnesses of fact, no such cogent material
had been emerged out by virtue of which
the prosecution story could be falsified. On
perusal of the evidence of the victim, her
mother as well as eye witness, in totality, it
can be safely concluded that no offence
under Section 376
IPC
against
the
appellants was proved but offence under
Section 363 and 366 IPC has been duly
proved. The finding given by the learned
trial court court in this regard is based on
the statements, evidence of the prosecution
witnesses and facts placed on record.
Nothing is emerged out that beyond the
material available on record, the learned
trial court has exercised its discretion.
Thus, there is no illegality or perversity in
the finding of the trial court with regard to
conviction of the appellants under Section
363 and 366 IPC.

24. During the course of hearing, the
learned
counsel
appearing
for
the
appellants has made a prayer and states that
one of the appellant, namely, Ram
Sajeewan has become the age of 70 years
and her wife, appellant no. 2, namely, Mrs.
Kevala has become 65 years of age and
11 All. Ram Sajeewan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
577
thus, they are very old and they are unable
to move also. No other case against them is
previously lodged and after conviction,
they have not committed any other offence,
thus, after giving the benefit of Section 4 of
the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, they
may be released on the bond of good
behaviour.

25. Learned AGA for the State, on the
other hand, opposed the appeal and has
submitted
that
there
is
no
material
irregularity or illegality committed by trial
court and keeping in view the evidence on
record,
accused-appellants
have
been
rightly convicted.

26. Learned AGA further states that
the benefit of Section 4 of the Act of 1958
could be extended to the accused-appellants
on certain stipulations as specified in
Section 4 of the Act of 1958.

27. In this regard, Sections 3 and 4 of
the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 is
quoted as under:

"3. Power of court to release
certain offenders after admonition.-
When any person is found guilty of having
committed an offence punishable under
section 379 or section 380 or section 381 or
section 404 or section 420 of the Indian
Penal Code, (45 of 1860) or any offence
punishable with imprisonment for not more
than two years, or with fine, or with both,
under the Indian Penal Code or any other
law, and no previous conviction is proved
against him and the court by which the
person is found guilty is of opinion that,
having regard to the circumstances of the
case including the nature of the offence,
and the character of the offender, it is
expedient so to do, then, notwithstanding
anything contained in any other law for the
time being in force, the court may, instead
of sentencing him to any punishment or
releasing him on probation of good conduct
under section 4, release him after due
admonition.

Explanation.-For the purposes of
this section, previous conviction against a
person shall include any previous order
made against him under this section or
section 4.

4. Power of court to release
certain offenders on probation of good
conduct.-(1) When any person is found
guilty of having committed an offence not
punishable with death or imprisonment for
life and the court by which the person is
found guilty is of opinion that, having
regard to the circumstances of the case
including the nature of the offence and the
character of the offender, it is expedient to
release him on probation of good conduct,
then, notwithstanding anything contained in
any other law for the time being in force,
the court may, instead of sentencing him at
once to any punishment direct that he be
released on his entering into a bond, with or
without sureties, to appear and receive
sentence when called upon during such
period, not exceeding three years, as the
court may direct, and in the meantime to
keep the peace and be of good behaviour:

Provided that the court shall not
direct such release of an offender unless it
is satisfied that the offender or his surety, if
any, has a fixed place of abode or regular
occupation in the place over which the
court exercises jurisdiction or in which the
offender is likely to live during the period
for which he enters into the bond.

(2) Before making any order
under sub-section (1), the court shall take
578 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
into consideration the report, if any, of the
probation officer concerned in relation to
the case.

(3) When an order under subsection (1) is made, the court may, if it is of
opinion that in the interests of the offender
and of the public it is expedient so to do, in
addition pass a supervision order directing
that the offender shall remain under the
supervision of a probation officer named in
the order during such period, not being less
than one year, as may be specified therein,
and may in such supervision order impose
such conditions as it deems necessary for
the due supervision of the offender.

(4)
The
court
making
a
supervision order under sub-section (3)
shall require the offender, before he is
released, to enter into a bond, with or
without sureties, to observe the conditions
specified in such order and such additional
conditions with respect to residence,
abstention from intoxicants or any other
matter as the court may, having regard to
the particular circumstances, consider fit to
impose for preventing a repetition of the
same offence or a commission of other
offences by the offender.

(5)
The
court
making
a
supervision order under sub-section (3)
shall explain to the offender the terms and
conditions of the order and shall forthwith
furnish one copy of the supervision order to
each of the offenders, the sureties, if any,
and the probation officer concerned."

28. From perusal of the aforesaid
provisions of the Act of 1958, it is clear
that Section 4 of the Act of 1958 does not
create any distinction between the category
of offenders and the provision of the said
Section can be made applicable in any case
where the offender is found guilty for
committing an offence which is not
punishable with death or imprisonment for
life.

29. That Hon'ble Apex Court in case
of Jagat Pal Singh & others vs. State of
Haryana, AIR 2000 SC 3622 has given
the benefit of probation while upholding
the conviction of accused persons under
Sections 323, 452, 506 IPC and has
released the accused persons on executing a
bond before the Magistrate for maintaining
good behaviour and peace for the period of
six months.

30. It is notable that the incident of the
present case took place way back in the
year 1995. The accused-appellants have
suffered in the matter for past 30 years and
no any criminal antecedent against the
appellants has been produced.

31. As the age of the appellant no. 1,
Ram Sajeewan is 70 years and the age of
appellant no. 2, Smt. Kevala is 65 years,
which is not controverted by the learned
AGA for the State and considering the
entire facts and special circumstances,
narrated above, I am of the view that the
benefit of provision of the Act of 1958
should
be
provided
to
the
accused/appellants, then the object of the
justice would be fulfilled.

32. In the light of the above
discussions, the conviction of the appellant
no.1 Ram Sajeewan and appellant no. 2
Smt. Kevala is maintained.

33. But the sentence is modified to the
extent that instead of sending appellant
no.1 Ram Sajeewan and appellant no. 2
Smt. Kevala to jail immediately, they are
given the benefit of the provision of
11 All. Ashok Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
579
Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders
Act, 1958 and they are directed to file two
sureties each of the like amount of
Rs.50,000/- alongwith their personal bonds
before District Probation Officer concerned
and also an undertaking to the effect that
they shall maintain peace and good
behaviour during the period of two years
from today. The said bonds are to be filed
by appellant no. 1 Ram Sajeewan and
appellant no. 2 Smt. Kevala within a period
of one month from the date of this
judgment.

34. In case they commit breach or
violate any conditions, stipulated in the
bonds and undertaking, they shall appear
before the trial court where they will be
taken into custody and shall have to
undergo the sentence awarded to them.

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

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

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

38. Trial court record, if any, shall also
be
sent
back
to
the
district
court
concerned.-
---------
(2025) 11 ILRA 579
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.11.2025

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.
THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1669 of 1996
Ashok Kumar & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Dileep Kumar(Senior Adv.), Rajrshi Gupta

Counsel for the Respondent:
Lal Dhari Rajbhar, Muskan Pandey, Vimlendu
Tripathi, Deenanath Mishra, Rajiv Lochan Shukla

Issue for Consideration
Matter
pertains
to
whether
the
prosecution, on the basis of circumstantial
evidence, proved beyond reasonable doubt
that the appellants committed the murder
of
Govind,
caused
disappearance
of
evidence, and misappropriated the tractor
and bricks, so as to sustain conviction
under Ss. 302/34, 201 and 404 IPC, and
whether alleged delay in FIR, defects in
identification
parade
and
recovery
evidence vitiated the conviction.

Headnotes
Indian
Penal
Code,
1860
-
SS.
302/34, 201 and 404 - Murder -
Circumstantial evidence - "Last seen
together" theory - Criminal Trial -
Murder - Deceased last seen alive
with accused - Dead body recovered
next
day
-
Medical
evidence
corroborating time of death - Chain
of circumstances held complete.
Evidence Act, 1872 - Identification Parade
- Identification by single witness - Dock
identification - Delay in holding parade -
Effect -Identification held reliable when
corroborated.
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Murder -
Causing disappearance of evidence
-
Dishonest misappropriation of property of
deceased - Conviction upheld.
Recovery of property - Tractor-trolley sold
after murder - Sale through ostensible
owner
- Recovery from purchaser
-
Accused's presence during sale - Inference
of guilt drawn.
FIR - Delay - Complaint given promptly
after identification of dead body - Delay
satisfactorily explained - Not fatal to
prosecution.