# Savir (In Jail) v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2021) 2 ILRA 437
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-02-05
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 2135 of 2013
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Gautam Chowdhary
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/savir-in-jail-v-state-of-u-p-46818
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Criminal Law-Extra judicial confessionDeath body unearthed from a place not
438 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
known to many-accused last seen with the
deceased-Extra judicial confession and
circumstances mentioned-corroborated by
independent evidence. Punishment of life
reduced to 14.6 years u/s 302 IPC.

Appeal partly allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited: -

## Text

2 All. Savir Vs. State of U.P.
437
dq¡oj iky us vkse iky dh gR;k djrs gq, fdlh
dks ns[kk gSA mlds xk¡o ds xqytkjh] y{eh] cPpw
flag o lqesj dks mlus gR;k djrs ugha ns[kk gSA
bl lk{kh dh lk{; ls ;g Li"V gS fd mlus
e`rd dh yk'k izkbejh Ldwy ds ikl feyus dk
mYys[k fd;k gSA uD'kk utjh esa izkbejh Ldwy]
?kVukLFky ds nf{k.k rjQ iIiw ds edku ds ckn
n'kkZ;k x;k gSA

54. ;|fi ;g lk{kh mlh xkao dk jgus
okyk gS vkSj vfHk;qDrksa ds izHkko o ncko esa
vkdj bl lk{kh }kjk vfHk;kstu dFkkud dk
leFkZu u djus dh lEHkkouk ls badkj ugha
fd;k tk ldrk gSA vfHk;kstu lk{kh la[;k 2
uUgw rFkk vfHk;kstu lk{kh la[;k 3 dq¡oj iky
dh lk{; ls ;g lkfcr gS fd ?kVuk ds le;
os dYyw dh cSBd ij cSBs gq, Fks vkSj mUgksaus
;g ?kVuk ns[kh gSA mijksDr nksuksa lkf{k;ksa dh
ftjg esa ,slk dksbZ rF; ugha vk;k gS ftlls
dh ?kVukLFky ij mudh mifLFkfr ds lEca/k esa
dksbZ lansg O;Dr fd;k tk ldsA ,slh n'kk esa
cpko lk{kh la[;k 1 dYyw dh lk{; ls
vihykFkhZx.k dks dksbZ ykHk izkIr ugha gksrk gS
mDr lEca/k esa fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk
lE;d fopkj fd;k x;k gS ftlesa ge dksbZ
fof/kd =qfV vFkok vfu;ferrk ugha ikrs gSaA

55. i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{; ls ;g Hkyh
Hkk¡fr fl} gS fd dfFkr ?kVuk ds le;
vihykFkhZx.k us ,d jk; gksdj vkXus;kL= ls
Qk;j dj pksVsa igqapkdj e`rd dh gR;k dj nhA
,slh n'kk esa ge fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds
iz'uxr fu.kZ; ,oa fu"d"kksZa esa dksbZ fof/kd =qfV
vFkok vfu;ferrk ugha ikrs gSA

56. tSlk fd Åij mYys[k fd;k tk pqdk
gS fd vihykFkhZ y{eh ,oa lqesj dh e`R;q gks tkus
ds dkj.k muds fy, vihy mi'kfer dh tk pqdh
gSA

57. fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; us i=koyh
ij miyC/k leLr lk{; ,oa vfHkys[kksa ij lE;d
fopkj djus ds mijkUr vihykFkhZx.k dks iz'uxr
vijk/k esa nks"kfl} ,oa nf.Mr fd;k gS ftlesa ge
dksbZ fof/kd =qfV vFkok vfu;ferrk ugha ikrs gSaA

58. mijksDr foospuk ls ge blh er ds gSa
fd mijksDr nksuksa vihysa cyghu gS ,oa fujLr
gksus ;ksX; gS rnuqlkj mijksDr nksuksa nkf.Md
vihysa fujLr dh tkrh gS rFkk fo}ku fopkj.k
U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr nks"kflf} ,oa n.Mkns'k dh
iqf"V dh tkrh gSA

59. vihykFkhZ xqytkjh tsy esa fu:} gS
mls ltk Hkqxrus gsrq ;Fkkor fu:} j[kk tk,A

60. vihykFkhZ cPpw flag tekur ij gS
mlds tekurukesa ,oa ca/ki= fujLr fd;s tkrsa
gSaA vihykFkhZ cPpw flag dks funsZf'kr fd;k tkrk
gS fd og ltk Hkqxrus ds fy, rqjUr lEcfU/kr
U;k;ky; ds le{k vkReleZi.k djsaA

61. fu.kZ; dh izfr ,oa v/khuLFk U;k;ky;
dh i=koyh vfoyEc lEcfU/kr U;k;ky; dks
vuqikyukFkZ Hksth tk,A
----------
(2021)02ILR A437
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.02.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 2135 of 2013

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

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Gyan Prakash, Sri Neeraj Srivastava, Sri
Noor Mohammad, Sri Aftab Ahmad, Sri
Vishnu Kumar

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A., Sri R.P. Singh

Criminal Law-Extra judicial confessionDeath body unearthed from a place not
438 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
known to many-accused last seen with the
deceased-Extra judicial confession and
circumstances mentioned-corroborated by
independent evidence. Punishment of life
reduced to 14.6 years u/s 302 IPC.

Appeal partly allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited: -

1. Laldeep Bhagat Vs St. of Bih.

2. St. of Mah. Vs Arjun, (2008) 17 SCC 53

3. Rambraksh Alias Jalim Vs St. of Chhatt.,
(2016) 12 SCC 251

4. Aghnu Manjhi Vs St. of Jhar., 2012 LawSuit
(Jhar) 1381,

5. Uppala Bixam @ Bixmaiah Vs St. of Andhra
Pradesh, (2019) 13 SCC 802

6. St. of Haryana Vs Jagbir Singh & anr., 2003 4
Crimes (SC) 241

7. Saktu & anr. Vs St. of U.P., AIR 1973 SC 760

8. Manoj Giri Vs St. of Chatt., (2013) 5 SCC 798

9. Rakesh & anr. Vs St. of U.P. & anr., (2014) 2
SCC

10. Nayan alias Yogesh Sevantibhai Soni Vs St.
of Guj. in Criminal Appeal No.37 of 2010

11.Raja @ Rajinder Vs St. of Haryana, JT 2015
(4) SC 57

12. Pratap Singh Vs Shivram, AIR 2020 SC 1382.

13. Mustaq Vs St. of Guj., AIR 2020 SC 2799

14. Criminal Appeal No.3337 of 2011 (Lokkhar
Shukla alias Shiv Shankar Shukla Vs St. of
U.P.)

15. Somasundaram Vs St., (2020) 7 SCC 722.

16. Vikas Yadav Vs St. of U.P, 2016 (9) SCC 541

17. Veersen Vs St. of U.P.-Criminal Appeal No.
1839 of 2004
18. G.V. Siddaramesh Vs St. of Karn. - Criminal
Appeal No.160 of 2006

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal
Jayendra Thaker, J.)

1. Heard Sri Noor Mohammad,
learned counsel for the appellant and
learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The appellant has preferred this
appeal against the judgment and order
dated 26.4.2013 passed by Additional
Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Etah in
Sessions Trial No.804 of 2007 convicting
and sentencing him under Sections 302 of
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC')
for
life
imprisonment
with
fine
of
Rs.2,000/-,
Section 364
for
rigorous
imprisonment for 10 years and under
Section 201 of I.P.C. for seven years
rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences of
imprisonment
were
directed
to
run
concurrently.

3. The fact is not in dispute that the
dead body of the deceased was found in the
agricultural field. It is also not in dispute
that the original accused was apprehended
by the police, it is also not in dispute that
during the period when the accused was in
the police station, he volunteered to show
the place where he had committed the act.

4. Investigating Officer submitted the
charge-sheet to the competent court and as
the accused was facing charges which were
exclusively triable by the Court of
Sessions, hence the case was committed to
the
Court
of
Sessions.
On
being
summoned, the accused pleaded not guilty
and wanted to be tried.

5. The prosecution examined about 9
witnesses which are as follows:
2 All. Savir Vs. State of U.P.
439
1
Deposition
of
Kallan Ahmad
PW1
2
Deposition
of
Shahid
PW2
3
Deposition
of
Husna
PW3
4
Deposition
of
Mohd. Aakil
PW4
5
Deposition
of
Jaivir Singh
PW5
6
Deposition
of
Dr. Nannumal
PW6
7
Deposition
of
Ram
Kumar
Singh
PW7
8
Deposition
of
Santosh Kumar
Singh
PW8
9
Deposition
of
Sonvir Singh
PW9

6. In support of ocular version
following documents were filed:

1
Written Report Ex.Ka.4
2
F.I.R.
Ex.Ka.1
3
Recovery
memo
of
human skeleton
Bone
Ex.Ka.2
4
Recovery
memo of blood
stained
Cloth
and sleeper
Ex.Ka.3
5
Postmortem
Report
Ex.Ka.9
6
Panchayatnama Ex.Ka.11
7
Charge-sheet
Ex.Ka.10

7. On the witnesses being examined
and the prosecution having concluded its
evidence, the accused was put to question
under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and hearing
arguments on behalf of prosecution and the
defence,
the
learned
Sessions
Judge
convicted the appellants as mentioned
aforesaid.
Being
aggrieved
by
and
dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgement
and order passed by the Sessions Court the
appellants have preferred the present
appeal.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant
has submitted that the incident alleged to
have taken place on 26.1.2007; neither the
Gumshudgi Report nor any information
regarding the missing of the victim was
lodged against the appellant and only after
four months of the occurrence, the
appellant and the other co-accused persons
were named in the F.I.R only on the basis
of suspicion and no plausible reason was
given for the delay in lodging the F.I.R.

9. He has contended that the entire
conviction has been made by the learned
Trial Judge only on the basis of confession
and on the theory of last seen together. He
has submitted that the skeleton which was
recovered at the instance of accused was
not sent for D.N.A. profile which can be
said to be not of the deceased in absence of
D.N.A.

10. He has submitted that the accused
though had confessed before the police
authority that he has committed the murder
of the deceased by means of Gadasa but the
recovery of the same was not made at the
instance of the accused.

11. It is further submitted by the
learned counsel for the appellant that dead
body of the deceased though was recovered
440 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
at the instance of the accused, it was a case
of admission of evidence, hence, conviction
only under Section 201 of I.P.C. could have
been made. In support of his argument, he
has relied on the decision in Laldeep
Bhagat
Vs.
State
of
Bihar,
more
particularly at paragraph No.10 which is as
under:

"10. In a case of circumstantial
evidence, it is necessary that the fact 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 and the circumstances should be of a
conclusive nature. In the instant case the fact
established are not of consistent only with the
hypothesis of guilt of the appellant and the
circumstances are not conclusive nature.
Besides the chain of circumstances has not
been established by the prosecution as stated
above and hence the facts so established
cannot be said to be sufficient for conviction
of the appellant under Sections 302 and 376
of the Indian Penal Code save and except
Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code."

Learned counsel for the appellant
has further relied on the decision in State of
Maharashtra Vs. Arjun, (2008) 17 SCC 53,
more particularly on the following paras:

"The circumstances which were
pressed into service to fasten the guilt on the
accused are, as follows:

1. Illicit intimacy with accused
No.1.

2. The accused No.2 purchased
two packets of rat killer poison from the
shop of Motichand, PW-5.

3. The accused No.2 purchased
gunny bag (article 16), cotton rope
(Articles 17, 18 and 19) and nylon rope
(article 20) from the shop of Abhay Bhoj,
PW-6.

4. Discovery of dead body of
Jagnandansingh from Morda Tank at the
instance of accused No.2.

5. Dead body of Jagnandansingh
was found in a gunny bag that the dead
body was tied by means of cotton rope and
that two stones were found to have been
tied to gunny bag by means of nylon rope.

So far as the purchase of rat killer
poison and the gunny bag is concerned,
there was no evidence to show that either
the rat killer poison or the gunny bag was
purchased prior to the date of occurrence. It
is to be noted that the body of the deceased
was found in a decomposed state. The
Doctor who conducted the post mortem
categorically stated that in view of the
decomposed state of the dead body, it was
not possible to say whether any rat killing
poison
was
used.
The
only
other
circumstance is purported discovery of the
dead
body
at
the
instance
of
the
respondent."

The High Court has found that
this so-called discovery on the basis of the
information given by A-2 has not been
established.

Above being the position, we find
that the High Court's judgment does not
suffer from any infirmity to warrant
interference. The appeal is, accordingly,
dismissed."

12. Learned counsel for the
appellant has also relied on the decisions
in Rambraksh Alias Jalim Vs. State of
Chhattishgarh, (2016) 12 SCC 251,
Aghnu
Manjhi
Vs.
State
of
Jharkhand, 2012 LawSuit (Jhar) 1381,
Uppala Bixam alias Bixmaiah Vs.
State of Andhra Pradesh, (2019) 13
SCC 802 and State of Haryana Vs.
Jagbir Singh and Another, 2003 4
Crimes (SC) 241.
2 All. Savir Vs. State of U.P.
441

13. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the
State has submitted that the conviction of
the accused is just and proper. He has taken
us through the findings of the learned Trial
Judge and has contended that it was the
accused at whose instance the dead body of
the deceased was recovered.

14. In support of his submission,
learned
A.G.A.
has
relied
on
the
decisions in Saktu and Another Vs.
State of U.P., AIR 1973 SC 760 and in
Manoj Giri Vs. State of Chattishgarh,
(2013) 5 SCC 798.

15. The accused-appellant even in his
statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., has
not come out with the defence as to how he
came to know that the dead body of the
deceased was at a particular place. The
place could not have been known to any
other person but the accused alone. The
recovery of the dead body and the
instrument used for commission of offence
further strengthen the decision of the Trial
Court as according to learned A.G.A., the
judgment in Saktu and Another (Supra)
as well as Manoj Giri (Supra) once it is
established and proved that the accused
persons
committed
that
offence
the
prosecution has successfully proved that
the ingredients in Rakesh and another Vs.
State of U.P. and another, (2014) 2 SCC
and the principle laid therein cannot be
made applicable to the facts of this case.

16. In the present case, the events
complete the chain and, therefore, we are
satisfied that the conviction of the accusedappellant requires to be upheld. Reference
to the decision penned by His Lordship
Justice M.R. Shah (as he then was) in the
case of Nayan alias Yogesh Sevantibhai
Soni Vs. State of Gujarat in Criminal
Appeal No.37 of 2010 decided on 1.9.2015
where similar situation had arisen, reliance
can be easily placed.

17. Reliance can be placed on the
decision of the Apex Court in Raja @
Rajinder Vs. State of Haryana, JT 2015
(4) SC 57. Relevant pargraph of the
aforesaid judgment is as under :

"14. Thus, if an accused person
gives a statement that relates to the
discovery of a fact in consequence of
information
received
from
him
is
admissible. The rest part of the statement
has to be treated as inadmissible. In view of
the same, the recovery made at the instance
of the accused-appellant has been rightly
accepted by the trial Court as well as by
the High Court, and we perceive no flaw in
it.

15. Another circumstance which
has been taken note of by the High Court is
that the blood-stained clothes and the
weapon, the knife, were sent to the
Forensic Science Laboratory. The report
obtained from the Laboratory clearly
shows that blood stains were found on the
clothes and the knife. True it is, there has
been no matching of the blood group.
However, that would not make a difference
in the facts of the present case. The accused
has not offered any explanation how the
human blood was found on the clothes and
the knife. In this regard, a passage from
John
Pandian
v.
State[7]
is
worth
reproducing:

"The discovery appears to be
credible. It has been accepted by both the
courts below and we find no reason to
discard it. This is apart [pic]from the fact
that this weapon was sent to the forensic
science laboratory (FSL) and it has been
found stained with human blood. Though
the blood group could not be ascertained,
as the results were inconclusive, the
442 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
accused had to give some explanation as to
how the human blood came on this weapon.
He gave none. This discovery would very
positively further the prosecution case."

In view of the aforesaid, there is
no substantial reason not to accept the
recovery of the weapon used in the crime. It
is also apt to note here that Dr. N.K. Mittal,
PW-1, has clearly opined that the injuries
on the person of the deceased could be
caused by the knife and the said opinion
has gone unrebutted."

18. The matter based on presumptive
reasoning will go to show that the accused
also have motive. In the case in hand, it has
come in evidence that the accusedappellant was in friendship with the
deceased. The accused is known to have
gone with the deceased and after the death
of deceased, the accused-appellant in
mysteriously came back to the village and
doctrine of confession by subsequent event
is founded on the fact that seizure was
made at the instance of the information
obtained
from
accused-appellant.
The
information might be not inculpatory in
nature but if it results in a discovery of a
fact, it becomes reliable information. In our
case, the judgment of this High Court relied
by learned counsel for the appellant cannot
come to the aid him as here the learned
Judge has not only relied on all the
statements but also on the evidence and
antecedents and the judgment is not only
based only on last seen theory.

19. We are convinced that the
evidence as discussed by the learned trial
judge leave no room for us to take a
different view then that taken by the
learned trial judge for the reasons that the
dead body was unearthed from the place
which was though not secluded, would not
be known to many as the incident occurred
much before the death. The story built by
the accused who was last seen with the
deceased also inspires confidence as
principal of falsus in uno falsus in
omnibus will apply to the facts of this case
as he conveyed falsely that deceased had
eloped with lady to Delhi. The family
members of the deceased tried to search
fanatically but not able to find the
deceased. After subsequent event and after
the arrest of the accused, it was he who
gave the name of the place where the dead
body was and the instrument used for
offences.

20. In this case, Sections 3 read with
Section 4 and 114 of the Evidence Act,
1872 can also be invoked. The Rules of
presumption are deduced from the human
knowledge and experience. In this case,
relation and coincidence of facts and
circumstances as narrated in the case of
Pratap Singh Vs. Shivram, AIR 2020 SC
1382.

21. We may also go by the judgment
of the Trial Court based on the basis of
extra judicial confession which has been
corroborated by the independent evidence
and other circumstances mentioned in the
confession
has
been
separately
and
independently
corroborated.
The
corroboration needs to be the basis of
preponderance.

22. Section 27 of the Evidence Act
goes to show that submissions made by
learned counsel for the appellant cannot be
countenanced. The Judgment in Mustaq
Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 2020 SC 2799
will also have bearing on the factual data of
this case. In the said matter, the appellant
showed the spot where weapons had been
hidden under shed. From the evidence and
material on record, it can be said that the
2 All. Savir Vs. State of U.P.
443
recovery of weapon of offence was from
the place which was known to all. Similar
is the case in hand. The judgment in
Mustaq (Supra) will apply to the facts of
this case as here in this case also the
accused made the description of place. He
himself showed the spot which would not
be known to many persons. The decision of
this Court in Criminal Appeal No.3337 of
2011
(Lokkhar
Shukla
alias
Shiv
Shankar Shukla Vs. State of U.P.) dated
3.10.2018 will apply to in full force to the
facts of this case.

23. Re-appreciation of evidence on
record, more particularly, the depositions
of the police officers, the original
complainant as well as the other aspects
are required to be looked into. The
prosecution
has
been
successful
in
proving the presence of the original
accused along with the deceased who can
be said to have caused injuries to the
deceased
by
instrument
which
was
recovered at the instance of the accused.
The prosecution having come to know
that the accused was with the deceased,
they immediately nabbed him.

24. Relying on the depositions as
they emerge before us, we can safely say
that the accused is the person to whom
the entire circumstantial chain points out.
The accused was said to have moved with
the deceased from the place of residence
of the deceased. His mala fide intention
for giving wrong message that the
deceased had eloped to Delhi and that
recovering the dead body at his instance
from the place which would be known to
accused and accused alone also reinforces
our belief that the judgment of the Trial
Court does not require any interference
except on the quantum of punishment
which requires to be clarified.

25. We are unable to accept the
submission of Sri Noor Mohammad that
this is a case of no evidence. The chain of
circumstances cannot be said to be broken.
We have considered the statement about
the matter which discovers the dead body
which
was
made
by
the
accused
voluntarily. Reliance can be placed on the
recent decision of the Apex Court in
Somasundaram Vs. State, (2020) 7 SCC
722.

26. We are conscious that the
statement
made
before
the
police
authorities is not acceptable but in view of
the fact that the place of incidence and the
place
where
the
dead
body
was
kept/hidden, the recovery of weapon, it
proves that the accused and accused alone
was the perpetrator of the crime. It cannot
be said that the Trial Court has committed
any
error
in
convicting
the
appellant/original accused.

27. From the depositions of P.W.1,
the prosecution is successful in establishing
and proving that it was the accused who
had moved with the deceased and that the
dead body was that of the deceased whose
missing report was filed.

28. In the final analysis, the
prosecution has been successful in proving
the complete chain of events which can
lead to the only conclusion that it was the
accused alone and alone who had caused
the death of the deceased.

29. This takes us to the question of
punishment of life in this case mean till the
last breath or we can grant what is known
as fixed term punishment as discussed by
the apex court in the case of Vikas Yadav
Vs. State of U.P, 2016 (9) SCC 541
followed by the undersigned in Criminal
444 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Appeal No. 1839 of 2004 (Veersen Vs.
State of U.P.) decided on 20.9.2017. We
are even fortified in our view by the
decision of the Apex Court in Criminal
Appeal
No.160
of
2006
(G.V.
Siddaramesh Vs. State of Karnataka)
dated 5.2.2010.

30. The accused is in jail since more
than 10 years, we give him fixed term
conviction for 14.6 years under Section 302
of I.P.C. Fine awarded by the Trial Judge is
maintained. Conviction under Section 364
of I.P.C. and 201 of I.P.C. are maintained.

31. In view of the above, this appeal
is partly allowed.
----------
(2021)02ILR A444
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 05.02.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 2484 of 2007
&
Criminal Appeal No. 2548 of 2007

Daya Ram & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Vishal Chaudhary, Ishan Baghel, M.S. Khan

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A.

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure,1973-Section 374(2) - Indian
Penal
Code,1860-Section
302/34application-allowed-appellants
/accused
blow lathis upon the deceased while the
accused were hammering a wooden stake
on the land with an intention to forcibly
take possession of land belonging to the
deceased family-it was a sudden incident
over the trivial matter-no prior mediation
or meeting of mind between the accusedthe fatal lathi blow on head of the
deceased was given by only one appellant,
while other injuries were simple in naturetrial court erred that the accused with
common
intention
assaulted
the
deceased-the lathi blow was not with an
intention to cause death-all the three
accused can not held guilty for same
offence but each one be guilty for injury
individually caused by him as per section
38 of IPC-where several persons are
engaged or concerned in the commission
of a criminal act, they may be guilty of
different offences by means of that actaccused already undergone sentences
more than 14 years-they are directed to
be set-free.(Para 2 to 10)

The appeal is allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Nathi Lal Vs St. of U.P. (1990) Supp SCC 145

2. St. of M.P. Vs Mishrilal (Dead) & ors. (2003) 9
SCC 426

3. Virsa Singh Vs St. of Punj.(1958) AIR SC 465

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar
Singh, J.)

1. Appeals

1.1 The instant criminal appeals
under Section 374 (2) CrPC have been
preferred by the three accused-appellants,
namely
Daya
Ram,
Jay
Singh
and
Mahendra
alias
Madan
against
the
impugned judgment and order dated
20/21.09.2007 passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge/F.T.C.-VIII, Lucknow in
Sessions Trial No.0193 of 2003, arising out
of Crime No.0149 of 2002 under Sections
307, 302, 504 and 506 IPC lodged at Police