# Satyam Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 7 ILRA 460
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-07-14
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1745 of 2021
- **Bench:** Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/satyam-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-50359
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,1860 -
Sections 306 & 376(2) - Abatement to
suicide - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
- Section 3(2)(V) - I. T Act, 2000 - Section
67 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article
21 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
Section 161 - Appeal against rejection of
bail - Allegation against appellant that he
harassed
wife
and
daughter
of
complainant's brother and they committed
suicide
-
Appellant
submitted
that
complainant's entire St.ment was based
on suspicion - Cause of death of deceased
was unknown, due to property dispute
both were killed by their family members -
Circumstantial evidence, no independent
eye witness - Chain of circumstances not
complete. (Para 7, 8, 12, 15, 21)

Held, none of villagers or any independent
person had seen viral video clip or
photograph of appellant and deceased nor
any complaint was made by police that
some video or photograph were taken by
appellant on his mobile phone and on that
basis he threatened her - Husband of
deceased St.d he received video clip from
appellant which after seeing it he deleted,
but he had not informed this to police,
7 All. Satyam Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
461
further St.d appellant made physical
relations with his wife but he has not
made any complaint, St.ment doubtful -
Investigating Officer St.d after recovering
mobile phone of appellant from his house,
handed over by his mother, he without
putting in sealed cover send it to forensic
lab, authenticity of report was doubtful.
(Para 32)

Appeal allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

460 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
continuation of the legal proceedings would
be an abuse of process of law.

31. Therefore, the offence in the instant
case being not of a pre-dominantly civil
nature and being committed solely on the
basis of caste of victim, the rigours of SC/ST
Act being a Special statute, enacted with a
specific noble legislative intent that must be
given effect in its letter and spirit, cannot be
diluted by quashing the Criminal Proceedings
in question on the basis of compromise. Thus,
in the instant case, a case for exercise of
extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not
made out, as in this case a Criminal Appeal
has been filed under S.14-A (1) SC/ST Act,
which reads as follows:-

"14-A(1) Notwithstanding anything
contained in the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), an appeal
shall lie, from any judgment, sentence or
order, not being an interlocutory order, of
a Special Court or an Exclusive Special
Court, to the High Court both on facts and
on law."

32. In the Scheme of SC/ST Act,
there is no provision for compounding the
offences under the Act.

33. In the light of the analysis made
above and as appellants have failed to point
out any illegality, infirmity or perversity in
the impugned order dated 16.01.2023, I am
of the view that Appeal being devoid of
merits which is liable to be dismissed and
is, hereby, dismissed.

33. It is made clear that the
observations made herein while dismissing
the instant Criminal Appeal shall have no
bearing whatsoever on the merits of the
case during trial.
----------
(2023) 7 ILRA 460
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 14.07.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1745 of 2021

Satyam Singh ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Ramakar Shukla, Ravi Kant Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Alok Srivastava

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,1860 -
Sections 306 & 376(2) - Abatement to
suicide - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
- Section 3(2)(V) - I. T Act, 2000 - Section
67 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article
21 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
Section 161 - Appeal against rejection of
bail - Allegation against appellant that he
harassed
wife
and
daughter
of
complainant's brother and they committed
suicide
-
Appellant
submitted
that
complainant's entire St.ment was based
on suspicion - Cause of death of deceased
was unknown, due to property dispute
both were killed by their family members -
Circumstantial evidence, no independent
eye witness - Chain of circumstances not
complete. (Para 7, 8, 12, 15, 21)

Held, none of villagers or any independent
person had seen viral video clip or
photograph of appellant and deceased nor
any complaint was made by police that
some video or photograph were taken by
appellant on his mobile phone and on that
basis he threatened her - Husband of
deceased St.d he received video clip from
appellant which after seeing it he deleted,
but he had not informed this to police,
7 All. Satyam Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
461
further St.d appellant made physical
relations with his wife but he has not
made any complaint, St.ment doubtful -
Investigating Officer St.d after recovering
mobile phone of appellant from his house,
handed over by his mother, he without
putting in sealed cover send it to forensic
lab, authenticity of report was doubtful.
(Para 32)

Appeal allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs St. of Mah.,
1984 Cri. L.J. 178

2. Ude Singh & ors. Vs St. of Har.; (2019) 17
SCC 301

3. Hitesh Verma Vs St. of Uttarakhand & anr.,
(2020) 10 SCC 710,

4. Kamal Vs St. of Har., 2004 (13) SCC 526, (Para 2)

5. Takht Singh Vs St. of M.P., 2001 (10) SCC
463, (Para 2)

6. Dataram Singh Vs St. of U.P. & anr., reported
in (2018) 3 SCC 22

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

1. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of
State is already on record and in reply
thereto, the learned counsel for the
appellant has filed rejoinder affidavit today
in Court, which is taken on record.

2. Shri Alok Srivastava, the learned
counsel for the opposite party No. 2 was
already granted time to file counter affidavit
on 02.03.2023, since then the case listed 3-4
times, but he has not filed any counter
affidavit. He submits that he will argue the
matter in absence of any counter affidavit.

4. Heard Shri Amrendra Nath Singh,
learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri
Ravi Kant Pandey, the learned counsel for
the appellant, Ms. Shikha Sinha, the
learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party
No. 1 as well as Shri Alok Srivastava, the
learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2
and perused the record.

5. The present criminal appeal under
Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes &
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act has been preferred by the appellantSatyam Singh, against the impugned order
dated 28.05.2021 passed by the court of
learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Gonda
in Bail Application No. 1193 of 2021,
arising out of Case Crime No. 85 of 2021,
under Sections 306, 376(2) I.P.C. read with
Section 3(2)(5) of Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act and Section 67 of I.T. Act, Police
Station Tarabganj, District Gonda, whereby
bail application of the appellant has been
rejected.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant
submits that appellant is a student of B.Sc.
in a reputed college and was pursuing his
studies. He has falsely been implicated in
the present case due to enmity and village
party bandi. The entire allegation as
levelled by the prosecution against the
appellant is false and fabricated and has
been made only with intention to ruin the
entire future of the appellant.

7. Learned counsel further submits
that the first information report was lodged
by the opposite party No. 2-Pappu Paswan
against the appellant on 24.03.2021 at
03:19 a.m. showing the incident of
23.03.2021, under Section 306 I.P.C. read
with Section 3(2)(5) of Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act at Police Station Tarabganj,
District Gonda, alleging therein that in the
462 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
intervening night of 23/24.03.2021 brotherin-law of his brother, Pujari, called him on
his mobile to talk with his sister, over
which he went to the house of his brother,
then neighbour informed him that wife and
daughter of his brother, namely, Phoola
Devi and Khushboo had gone towards
field, then he went in their search towards
south side and saw that in the field of
Ishardeen Paswan from the tree of jackfruit
(Katahal), wife and daughter of his brother
were hanging. On account of harassment of
Satyam Singh, wife and daughter of his
brother namely Phoola Devi and Khusboo
hanged themselves and committed suicide.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant
further argued that the first information
report was lodged after a much delay
without giving any plausible explanation.
On the information of death of both the
deceased the police of Police Station
Tarabaganj came and conducted inquest
proceedings and prepared inquest report,
thereafter, the dead bodies of both the
deceased
were
sent
for
postmortem
examination,
which
was
done
on
24.03.2021.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant
further submits that as per the postmortem
report of the deceased-Khushboo, her cause
of death was found to be asphyxia due to
ante mortem hanging with one ligature
mark of size 29.0 c.m. x 1.5 c.m. all around
the neck, which is mentioned at page-59 of
the paper book of the present appeal. He
further submits that the concerned doctor
has opined that no external and internal
injury seen on genitals, hymen was torn
and uterus was non gravid. This report is
given at page-60 of the paper book. Thus,
learned counsel for the appellant submits
that as per the post mortem report cause of
death
of
the
deceased-Khushboo
is
asphyxia due to hanging without any
injuries.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant
further submits that postmortem of the
deceased-Phoola Devi was also conducted,
in which apart from one ligature mark of
size 30.0 c.m. x 1.0 c.m. all around the
neck, three other simple injuries were seen
on the left knee.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant
further submits that there is no role of the
appellant in the death of above two
deceased and the appellant has falsely been
implicated in the present case.

12. Learned counsel for the appellant
further submits that the statement under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the complainant,
namely, Pappu Paswan was recorded by the
Investigating Officer on 24.03.2021 in
which he has also made suspicion that
some photographs and video clip was
prepared by the appellant and he was
having affairs with the deceased-Khushboo
and in the garb of that video clip and
photographs
the
appellant
was
blackmailing
her,
thus,
due
to
this
humiliation she committed suicide. But in
his statement recorded under Section 161
Cr.P.C. the complainant-Pappu Paswan has
not disclosed which type of video or clip of
deceased-Khushboo was made by the
appellant, or whether he had seen the same
from his own eyes or any other villager had
seen any obscene video clip or photographs
of the said deceased. Thus, it has been
argued by the learned counsel for the
appellant that on the basis of suspicion the
entire statement has been made by the
complainant.

13. Learned counsel for the appellant
further submits that thereafter statement of
7 All. Satyam Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
463
wife of the complainant, namely Smt. Mala
Devi was also recorded in which she has
also stated that there was some affair of
appellant with the deceased-Khushboo, he
used to torture the deceased-Khushboo and
also made physical relations with her and
made video clip and also took some
photographs, and he also threatened the
deceased to make viral the said video clip
and photographs. Learned counsel further
argued that in her entire statement Smt.
Mala Devi has not stated that she had ever
seen any video clip or photograph of
appellant
along
with
the
deceasedKhushboo or had ever seen them in a
compromising situation.

14. Learned counsel for the appellant
further submits that Smt. Mala in her
statement has further stated that the
appellant had committed rape of the
deceased-Khusbhoo several times, but no
any F.I.R. or complaint was ever made by
the deceased-Khushboo or her family
members against the appellant to the police,
which also falsifies the statement of Smt.
Mala Devi and thus it shows that appellant
has first time falsely been implicated in the
case.

15. Learned counsel for the appellant
further submits that the reasons of death of
deceased is totally unknown. However,
there was some property dispute that is why
both were killed by their family members.

16. Learned counsel for the appellant
further submits that another witness,
namely, Km. Reena in her statement
recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has also
repeated the same version as given by Smt.
Mala Devi in her statement recorded under
Section 161 Cr.P.C., but she has not stated
anything that she had seen any video clip or
photograph of appellant along with the
deceased-Khushboo in a compromising
situation.

17. Learned counsel for the appellant
further submits that the statement of
witness, namely, Mohit, who is husband of
the deceased-Khushboo, was also recorded
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 07.05.2021,
in which to save his skin he stated first time
that he had received one video clip from
the appellant which after seeing it he had
deleted, but he has not informed the police
earlier regarding this video clip. He has
only stated that the appellant made physical
relations with his wife-Khushboo, but he
has not ever made any complaint or lodged
the F.I.R., thus, the statement given by the
husband of the deceased appears to be
doubtful and it is not possible that the
husband keep quite on the obscene video of
her wife with the appellant and does not
take legal action against the culprit.

18. Learned counsel for the appellant
further submits that none of the villagers or
any independent person had ever seen any
viral video clip or photograph of appellant
and the deceased-Khushboo, nor any such
complaint was ever made by the police that
some video or photograph were taken by
the appellant on his mobile phone and on
the basis of which he was threatening her to
viral the same and was humiliating the
deceased-Khushboo.

19. Learned counsel for the appellant
further submits that in para-24 of the
affidavit filed in support of the bail
application it is clearly stated that no any
obscene video allegedly prepared by the
appellant is on the record, but the
Investigating
Officer
has
wrongly
submitted the charge sheet under Section
67 of the I.T. Act, and in reply to para-24 of
the aforesaid affidavit, learned A.G.A. has
464 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
given its reply in para-12 of counter
affidavit in which there is no any specific
denial of the said averment and only a
vague statement has been given.

20. Learned counsel for the appellant
further submits that the statement of the
Investigating Officer was also recorded
before the court below in which he has
stated that he recovered the mobile phone
of the appellant on 18.05.2021 from his
house, the appellant was not present but his
mother handed over one Redmi blue colour
mobile phone which he has taken without
putting the same in sealed cover and send it
the same to the forensic lab. Thus, it has
been argued that authenticity of the alleged
report of forensic laboratory is doubtful as
the said mobile phone was not given to the
same in sealed cover, which fact has been
stated in page-13 and 14 of the rejoinder
affidavit. Thus, it has been argued that
entire case as set up by the prosecution is
false and fabricated. The appellant is a
student and no such incident happened and
he has falsely been implicated in the
present case, thus, the bail application of
the present appellant may be allowed by
this
Court
sympathetically
and
the
impugned bail rejection order passed by the
trial court may be set aside.

21. Learned counsel for the appellant
further submits that it is a case of
circumstantial
evidence,
there
is
no
independent eye witness of the alleged
crime, even though informant and other
witnesses are not the eye witness. The
chain of circumstances are not complete.

22. Learned counsel for the appellant
while placing reliance upon the judgment
of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of
Maharshtra : 1984 Cri. L.J. 178 has
further argued that no one had seen the
commission
of
crime,
there
is
no
connecting link to indicate the involvement
of applicant in the commission of crime, it
is a case of circumstantial evidence and the
chain of evidence is totally broken, the
police has also failed to complete the chain
of evidence to connect the applicant in the
present crime.

23. Learned counsel for the appellant
further submits that applicant has never
abetted both the deceased to commit
suicide. From perusal of F.I.R. and from the
statements of complainant and other
witnesses no case under Section 306 I.P.C.
is made out. Even prosecution has failed to
proof that case under Section 306 I.P.C. is
made out as the essential ingredients for
proving the said provisions are not fulfilled
either on perusal of the F.I.R. or on perusal
of
statements
of
complainant
and
witnesses. The entire prosecution story is
false and fabricated and has been cooked
up with malafide intention.

24. Learned counsel for the appellant
further submits that in the light of the
statement
of
complainant
and
other
witnesses even assuming to the said
allegations to be a gospel truth, the same
will not constitute offence under Section
306 IPC read with Section 107 IPC. He
argues that the scope of Section 306 IPC
has been duly considered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Ude Singh
and others vs State of Haryana; (2019)
17 SCC 301.

25. Learned counsel for the appellant
further submits that provisions of Section
3(2)(5) of S.C./S.T. Act are not attracted in
the present case as in the entire statements
of complainant and other witnesses there is
no whisper that none of the villagers or any
7 All. Satyam Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
465
independent person had ever seen any
video clip or photograph of appellant and
the deceased-Khushboo, on the basis of
which it can be said that appellant was
threatening her to viral the same and was
humiliating the deceased-Khushboo. In
support of his arguments, the learned
counsel for the appellant while referring the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Hitesh Verma Vs. State of
Uttarakhand and another, (2020) 10 SCC
710. Thus, it has further been argued that
the applicant has falsely been implicated
with malafide intention.

26. Learned counsel for the appellant
further submits that the appellant is in jail
since 25.03.2021 and has by now done a
substantial period of incarceration. In support
of his argument, he has placed reliance of
Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in the case of
Kamal Vs. State of Haryana, 2004 (13)
SCC 526 and submitted that the Hon'ble
Apex Court was pleased to observe in
paragraph no. 2 of the judgment as under :-

"2. This is a case in which the appellant
has been convicted u/s 304-B of the India
Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment
for 7 years. It appears that so far the
appellant has undergone imprisonment for
about 2 years and four months. The High
Court declined to grant bail pending disposal
of the appeal before it. We are of the view that
the bail should have been granted by the
High Court, especially having regard to the
fact that the appellant has already served a
substantial period of the sentence. In the
circumstances, we direct that the bail be
granted to the appellant on conditions as may
be imposed by the District and Sessions
Judge, Faridabad."

27. Learned counsel for the applicant
has also placed reliance of Hon'ble Apex
Court judgment in the case of Takht Singh
Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2001 (10)
SCC 463, and submitted that the Hon'ble
Apex Court was pleased to observe in
paragraph no. 2 of the judgment as under:-

"2.
The
appellants
have
been
convicted under Section 302/149, Indian
Penal Code by the learned Sessions Judge
and have been sentenced to imprisonment
for life. Against the said conviction and
sentence their appeal to the High Court is
pending. Before the High Court application
for suspension of sentence and bail was
filed but the High Court rejected that
prayer
indicating
therein
that
the
applicants can renew their prayer for bail
after one year. After the expiry of one year
the second application was filed but the
same has been rejected by the impugned
order. It is submitted that the appellants are
already in jail for over 3 years and 3
months. There is no possibility of early
hearing of the appeal in the High Court. In
the aforesaid circumstances the applicants
be released on bail to the satisfaction of the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sehore.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly."

28. Learned counsel for the appellant
further submits that ratio of law applicable
in above those cases is also applicable in
the case of the appellant, therefore, the
appellant may be enlarged on bail by this
Court sympathetically.

29. Several other submissions in order
to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations
made against the appellant have also been
placed
forth before
the
Court. The
circumstances which, according to the
counsel, led to the false implication of the
accused have also been touched upon at
length. It has been assured on behalf of the
appellant that he is ready to cooperate with
466 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the process of law and shall faithfully make
himself available before the court whenever
required and is also ready to accept all the
conditions which the Court may deem fit to
impose upon him. It has also been pointed
out that the accused is having criminal
history of one case, which has been
explained in para-32 of the affidavit filed in
support of the bail application. It has
further been argued that appellant is in jail
since 25.03.2021 and that in the wake of
heavy pendency of cases in the court, there
is no likelihood of any early conclusion of
trial.

30. Learned A.G.A. for the State
submits that bail application of the
appellant may be rejected as there is
evidence against the appellant.

31. Shri Alok Srivastava, the learned
counsel for the opposite party No. 2
submits that appellant is involved in
heinous
crime,
therefore,
his
bail
application may be rejected.

32. After perusing the record in the
light of the submissions made at the bar
and after taking an overall view of all the
facts and circumstances of this case, nature
of evidence, period of detention already
undergone,
unlikelihood
of
early
conclusion of trial and also in absence of
any convincing material to indicate the
possibility of tampering with the evidence
and considering that none of the villagers
or any independent person had ever seen
any viral video clip or photograph of
appellant and the deceased-Khushboo, nor
any such complaint was ever made by the
police that some video or photograph were
taken by the appellant on his mobile phone
and on the basis of which he was
threatening her to viral the same and was
humiliating
the
deceased-Khushboo;
further Mohit who is husband of the
deceased-Khushboo had stated that he had
received one video clip from the appellant
which after seeing it he had deleted, but he
had not informed the police earlier
regarding this video clip and had also stated
that the appellant made physical relations
with his wife-Khushboo but he has not ever
made any complaint or lodged the F.I.R.,
thus, there appears force in the argument of
learned counsel for the appellant that the
statement given by the husband of the
deceased appears to be doubtful and it is
not possible that the husband keep quite on
the obscene video of her wife with the
appellant and does not take legal action
against the culprit; further the Investigating
Officer in his statement recorded before the
court below has stated that after recovering
the mobile phone of appellant from his
house which was handed over by the
mother of appellant he without putting the
same in sealed cover send it to the forensic
lab, thus there appears force in the
argument of learned counsel for the
appellant that authenticity of the alleged
report of forensic laboratory is doubtful;
there appears force in the submission of
learned counsel for the appellant that as per
the version of the F.I.R. and as per the
statements of complainant and other
witnesses no case under Section 306 I.P.C.
is made out as essential ingredients for
proving the said offence are not fulfilled;
there appears also force in the submission
of learned counsel for the appellant that in
the entire statements of complainant and
other witnesses there is no whisper that
none of the villagers or any independent
person had ever seen any video clip or
photograph of appellant and the deceasedKhushboo, on the basis of which it can be
said that appellant was threatening her to
viral the same and was humiliating the
deceased-Khushboo, thus, provisions of
7 All. Satyam Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
467
Section 3(2)(5) of S.C./S.T. Act are also not
attracted and also chain of circumstances
are not complete and thus it is a case of
circumstantial
evidence;
further
considering the larger mandate of the
Article 21 of the Constitution of India and
the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand
Sarda (supra), Ude Singh and others
(supra), Hitesh Verma (supra), Kamal
(supra),
Takht
Singh
(supra)
and
Dataram Singh Vs. State of UP and
another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22,
this Court is of the view that the learned
trial court has failed to appreciate the
material available on record. Thus, the
impugned bail rejection order passed by the
trial court is liable to be set aside.

33. Accordingly, the appeal is
allowed.
Consequently,
the
impugned
judgment and order dated 28.05.2021
passed by the court of learned Special
Judge,
SC/ST
Act,
Gonda
in
Bail
Application No. 1193 of 2021, arising out
of Case Crime No. 85 of 2021, under
Sections 306, 376(2) I.P.C. read with
Section 3(2)(5) of Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act and Section 67 of I.T. Act, Police
Station Tarabganj, District Gonda, is
hereby set aside and reversed.

34. Let the appellant, Satyam Singh,
be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 85
of 2021, under Sections 306, 376(2) I.P.C.
read with Section 3(2)(5) of Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act and Section 67 of I.T. Act,
Police Station Tarabganj, District Gonda,
with the following conditions:-

(i) The appellant shall furnish a
personal bond with two sureties each of
like amount to the satisfaction of the court
concerned.

(ii) The appellant shall appear and
strictly comply following terms of bond
executed under section 437 sub section 3 of
Chapter- 33 of Cr.P.C.:-

(a) The appellant shall attend in
accordance with the conditions of the bond
executed under this Chapter.

(b) The appellant shall not commit an
offence similar to the offence of which he
is accused, or suspected, of the commission
of which he is suspected, and

(c) The appellant shall not directly or
indirectly make any inducement, threat or
promise to any person acquainted with the
facts of the case so as to dissuade him from
disclosing such facts to the Court or to any
police officer or tamper with the evidence.

(iii) The appellant shall cooperate with
investigation /trial.

(iv) The appellant shall file an
undertaking to the effect that he shall not
seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for
evidence when the witnesses are present in
court. In case of default of this condition, it
shall be open for the trial court to treat it as
abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in
accordance with law.

(v) The appellant shall remain present
before the trial court on each date fixed,
either personally or through his counsel. In
case of his absence, the trial court may
proceed against him under Section 229-A
of the Indian Penal Code.

(vi) In case, the appellant misuses the
liberty of bail during trial, in order to
secure his presence, proclamation under
section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the
appellant fails to appear before the court on
the date fixed in such proclamation, then,
the trial court shall initiate proceedings
against him, in accordance with law, under
Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
468 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(vii) The appellant shall remain
present, before the trial court on the dates
fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii)
framing of charge and (iii) recording of
statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in
the opinion of the trial court absence of the
appellant is deliberate or without sufficient
cause, then it shall be open for the trial
court to treat such default as abuse of
liberty of bail and proceed against him in
accordance with law.

35. The trial court is also directed to
expedite the trial of the aforesaid case by
following the provisions of Section 309
Cr.P.C., strictly without granting any
unnecessary adjournments to the parties, in
case there is no other legal impediment.
----------
(2023) 7 ILRA 468
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 21.07.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 2049 of 2003

Bhaggal & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sanjay Pandey, Rajiv Raman Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,1860 -
Section 307 r/w 34 - Appeal against
conviction - Rigorous imprisonment - Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 145 - Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 161,
313 - Benefit of doubt - According to
prosecution appellant no.1 had fired upon
P.W.1 due to previous enmity that his bua
had been taken away by his uncle - PW-1
admitted he was only 2-3 years old and
appellants would have 5-6 years old - No
FIR lodged earlier - Victim not mentioned
this incident as cause of present incident -
Informant has died, he could not be
examined and controverted, who St.d to IO
that one day before incident , altercation
took place between victim and accused and
victim was warned by accused for not
visiting village in future - Genesis of
commission of offence not established -
Direct evidence, no motive to be proved by
prosecution. (Para 27)

No firearm injury caused by appellant no. 2
to injured - All four accused persons fired
while leaving place of occurrence, no empty
cartridges found - No recovery of fire-arm
from appellant no. 2 - Both witnesses of fact
turned hostile and no evidence except
evidence of informant that appellant no. 1
fired upon him on exhortation of appellant
no. 2. (Para 28)

In FIR, four persons named as accused and
informant and victim St.d to IO that in
addition to appellants, other accused were
also present on spot and committed crime -
Some arrangements took place out of court,
therefore, PW-1 deposed except appellants,
rest two accused persons covered their
faces, he could not recognize them. (Para
29)

No active role except role of exhortation
mentioned against appellant no.2, not
corroborated by independent evidence, not
proved beyond reasonable doubt from
evidence available on record. (Para 31)

Appeal allowed. (E-13)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Umesh Chandra
Sharma, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
appellants, learned AGA for the State and
perused the record.

2. This appeal has been preferred
against the order of conviction and