# Shahab Alam & Ors v. State of U.P. Opp. Party

- **Citation:** (2021) 2 ILRA 689
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-01-11
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1302 of 2015
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Gautam Chowdhary
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shahab-alam-ors-v-state-of-u-p-opp-party-46864
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code -
Sections 304(1)/34, 323/34 - Culpable
homicide
-
Conduct
of
accused
and
witnesses - Relevancy - Presence of all the
accused is identified - To make out a case
under Section 304(I)/34 I.P.C. conduct of
accused and the witnesses must be also
looked into - Heated altercation between
parties, main accused brought a knife and
stabbed the deceased, which proved fatal
causing death - Held, involvement of the
appellants is proved beyond reasonable
doubt. (Para 3, 13, 14, 17 and 24)
B. Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code -
Section
34
-
Common
intention
-
Ingredients - To convict accused with aid of
Section 34 I.P.C., apart from the fact that
there should be two or more accused, two
factors must be established: 1. Common
intention, and 2. Participation of the
accused in the commission of an offence is
not a must. (Para 20)
C. Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code -
Section 34 - Common intention - Collective
participation
-
Pre-mediation
before
incident - Section 34 pre-supposes that
there must be common intention and
participation of the accused in commission
of an offence - Incident occurred at the
residence of main-accused, which means
that he had not gone to the place of the
incident - There was no common intention
nor there was collective participation -
Offence
was
committed
without
any
common intention and all they had attacked
the other injured in different ways -
Punishment of life imprisonment to the
main accused u/s 304(1) IPC held liable to
be
substituted
with
sentence
of
imprisonment already undergone - Other
accused were held guilty u/s 324, not u/s
304(1) IPC. (Para 16 , 24, 26, 29 and 30)
Criminal Appeal partly allowed. (E-1)
Cases relied on :-

## Text

2 All. Shahab Alam & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
689

38. It is made clear that this Court has
not adjudicated the rights of either of the
parties and any observations made in this
order is limited only for the purposes of
considering the scope of Section 80 (1) and
(2) C.P.C. and it may not be taken as any
expression of opinion on merits of the case
of either of the parties.
----------
(2021)02ILR A689
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 11.01.2021

BEFORE

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

Criminal Appeal No. 1302 of 2015
with Criminal Appeal 821 of 2015

Shahab Alam & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opp. Party

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri S.D. Singh Jadaun, Sri M.A.S. Alam
Khan

Counsel for the Opp. Party:
A.G.A., Sri Abhinav Singh

A. Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code -
Sections 304(1)/34, 323/34 - Culpable
homicide
-
Conduct
of
accused
and
witnesses - Relevancy - Presence of all the
accused is identified - To make out a case
under Section 304(I)/34 I.P.C. conduct of
accused and the witnesses must be also
looked into - Heated altercation between
parties, main accused brought a knife and
stabbed the deceased, which proved fatal
causing death - Held, involvement of the
appellants is proved beyond reasonable
doubt. (Para 3, 13, 14, 17 and 24)
B. Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code -
Section
34
-
Common
intention
-
Ingredients - To convict accused with aid of
Section 34 I.P.C., apart from the fact that
there should be two or more accused, two
factors must be established: 1. Common
intention, and 2. Participation of the
accused in the commission of an offence is
not a must. (Para 20)
C. Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code -
Section 34 - Common intention - Collective
participation
-
Pre-mediation
before
incident - Section 34 pre-supposes that
there must be common intention and
participation of the accused in commission
of an offence - Incident occurred at the
residence of main-accused, which means
that he had not gone to the place of the
incident - There was no common intention
nor there was collective participation -
Offence
was
committed
without
any
common intention and all they had attacked
the other injured in different ways -
Punishment of life imprisonment to the
main accused u/s 304(1) IPC held liable to
be
substituted
with
sentence
of
imprisonment already undergone - Other
accused were held guilty u/s 324, not u/s
304(1) IPC. (Para 16 , 24, 26, 29 and 30)
Criminal Appeal partly allowed. (E-1)
Cases relied on :-
1. Criminal Appeal No. 2108 of 2003, Aflatoon
Vs St. of U.P. decided on 18.8.2017
2. Criminal Appeal No. 5441 of 2003, Arvind
Sharma Vs St. of U.P. decided on 19.8.2017
3. Criminal Appeal No. 3032 of 2004, Munna @
Nikkhlesh Sharma Vs St. of U.P. decided on
31.07.2017
4. Criminal Appeal No. 5095 of 2004, Furqan Vs
St. of U.P. decided on 31.08.2017
5. Subed Ali & ors. Vs St. of Assam, (2020) 10
SCC 517
6. Ilangovan Vs St. of T.N., (2020) 10 SCC 533
7. Subal Ghorai Vs St. of W.B., (2013) 4 SCC
607
8. Jai Bhagwan Vs St. of Har., 1999 Cr.L.J.
(S.C.)
690 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
9. Parasa Raja Manikyala Rao & anr. Vs St. of
A.P., (2003) 12 SCC 306
10.St. of Haryana Vs Tej Ram, 1980 (Supp) SCC
323
11. Ram Prasad & ors. Vs The S t. of U.P.,
(1976) 1 SCC 406
12.St. of Har. Vs Tej Ram, AIR 1980 SC 1496
(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra
Thaker, J. & Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary, J.)

1. Both these appeals challenge the
judgement and order dated 18.2.2015,
passed by Additional District & Sessions
Judge, Court No.16, Muzaffar Nagar, in
S.T. No. 595 of 2007 (State of U.P. Vs.
Shahab Alam and others), S.T. No. 1140 of
2007 ( State of U.P. vs. Kallu), both arising
out of Case Crime No. 1422 of 2006, under
Sections- 302/34, 323/34, 506 I.P.C., and
S.T. No. 596 of 2007 (State of U.P. vs.
Samoon), arising out of Case Crime No.
1477 of 2006, under Section 25/4 Arms
Act, registered at Police Station- Nai
Mandi, District Muzaffar Nagar. All these
sessions trials were tried jointly and were
decided by common judgment, acquitting
all the accused for offence under Section
506 I.P.C. and accused- Samoon for
offence u/s 25/4 Arms Act and convicting
all the four accused for the offence under
Section
304(I)/34
I.P.C.
for
life
imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 20,000/-
and for offence under Section 323/34
I.P.C., for one year rigorous imprisonment
with fine of Rs. 1000/-. All the sentences
were directed to run concurrently. In
furtherance, the fine of Rs. 25,000/- has
been imposed upon them to pay as
compensation to the informant side.

2. The trial of accused Shahab Alam,
Samoon and Yaseen, in respect of offence
punishable under Section 302/34, 323/34,
506 I.P.C. was the subject matter of
adjudication in Sessions Trial No. 595 of
2007 and the trial in respect of accused
Kallu for the offences punishable under
Sections 302/34, 323/34, 506 I.P.C. was the
subject matter of adjudication in Sessions
Trial No. 1140 of 2007 whereas the trial in
respect of accused Samoon for offence
punishable under Section 25/4 of the Arms
Act was the subject matter of adjudication
in Sessions Trial No. 596 of 2007. All the
cases being triable by Court of Sessions
were committed to it by the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, vide orders dated 10.4.2007,
31.7.2007 and 17.11.2020, respectively.
The accused, on being produced before the
Sessions Court, pleaded not guilty and,
therefore, were arraigned as accused.

3. As per prosecution version, on the
date of incident, the complainant and the
deceased went to the house of Samoon
(accused) so as to enquire as to why they
had beaten and misbehaved with their
grand mother in the morning on which
some altercation took place between the
parties and all of a sudden, Samoon from
somewhere brought a knife and stabbed the
deceased. This stabbing proved fatal and he
died on way to hospital. The other accused
got themselves armed with what can be
said to be sticks and rods and all of them, in
unition so as to bring home their common
intention, assaulted the other injured.

4. On the accused pleading not guilty,
they were tried and the prosecution led its
evidence by examining about 11 witnesses
which are as follows:

1
Deposition
of
Mohd. Dilshad
Deposition
of
Mohd. Dilshad
17.8.2
007
20.8.2
007
PW1
PW1
2
Deposition
of
Mohd. Tazul
12.11.
2007
PW2
PW2
2 All. Shahab Alam & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
691
Depos
ition
of
Mohd
.
Tazul
Deposition
of
Mohd. Tazul
Deposition
of
Mohd. Tazul
Deposition
of
Mohd. Tazul

2.6.20
08
17.2.2
009
26.5.2
009
27.7.2
009
PW2
PW2
PW2
3
Deposition of Dr.
Rakesh Kumar
6.10.2
009
PW3
4
Deposition of Dr.
Chandra
Prasad
Singh
23.11.
2009
PW4
5
Deposition of Dr.
Vikram Singh
7.1.20
10
PW5
6
Deposition
of
Rajesh Kumar
29.1.2
010
PW6
7
Deposition of Alok
Singh
Deposition of Alok
Singh
13.9.2
011
8.5.20
13
PW7
PW7
8
Deposition
of
Sukhpal Singh
Deposition
of
Sukhpal Singh
9.11.2
013
4.7.20
14
PW8
PW8
9
Deposition
of
Virendra Singh
24.5.2
013
PW9
1
0
Deposition
of
Omvir Singh
1.7.20
13
PW1
0
1
1
Deposition of Head
Constable
Tejpal
Singh
13.11.
2013
PW
11

5. In support of their ocular version
following documents were filed:

1
F.I.R.
8.11.2006
Ex.K
a.9
2
F.I.R.
16.11.2006 Ex.K
a.25
3
Written Report 8.11.2006
Ex.K
a.1
4
Application
11.11.2006 Ex.K
a.2
5
Arrest Memo
16.11.2006 Ex.K
a.14
6
Recovery
memo of knife
16.11.2006 Ex.K
a.13
7
Injury report
8.11.2006
Ex.K
a.3
8
Injury report
8.11.2006
Ex.K
a.4
9
Injury report
8.11.2006
Ex.K
a.5
10 Letter

Ex.K
a.6
11 Physical
Examination
8.11.2006
Ex.K
a.7
12 P.M. Report
10.11.2006 Ex.K
a.8
13 Panchayatnama 10.11.2006 Ex.K
a.18
14 Charge
sheet
Mool
29.11.2006 Ex.K
a.16
15 Charge
sheet
Mool
26.4.2007
Ex.K
a.17
16 Charge
sheet
Mool
22.11.2006 Ex.K
a.28
17 Site Plan with
Index
9.11.2006
Ex.K
a.12
18 Site Plan with
Index
23.11.2006 Ex.K
a.15
19 Site Plan with
Index
19.11.2006 Ex.K
a.27
20 G.D. Report

Ex.K
a. 10
21 G.D. Report

Ex.K
a.11
22 Letter
to
C.M.O.

Ex.K
a.19
23 Letter

Ex.K
a.20
24 Photo Lash

Ex.K
692 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
a.21
25 Chalan Lash

Ex.K
a.22
26 G.D. Report

Ex.K
a.23
27 Information to
Meerut
Medical

Ex.K
a.24
28 G.D. Report

Ex.K
a.26

6. We have heard Sri V.M. Zaidi,
learned counsel for accused- Kallu accused
and Sri S.D. Singh Jadaun, learned counsel
for rest of the accused and the learned A
G.A. for the State.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants
have taken us through the records, have
read the testimony of each and every
witness and have made their submissions.

8. It is submitted by the counsel in
unition
that
the
appellants
were
not
aggressors; they were in their own home. It
was the deceased and the injured who came
to the residence of Samoon. It is further
submitted by the counsel for the appellants
that so as to bring home the charges there
should have been a common intention to do
away with the deceased which is absent. He
has relied on the testimony of the doctor to
contend that even from the testimony of the
doctor, it cannot be culled out that the
deceased had been done to death and that the
appellants had any common intention. There
was no participation of the accused in unition.
Learned counsel for the appellants has also
requested the Court to exercise what can be
said to be our power under Section 357(3)
Cr.P.C. as long time has elapsed and one of
the accused is in jail for more than 10 years
and, in the alternative, it is submitted that the
Court may reduce the sentence looking to the
gravamen of the offence.

9. It is further submitted by Sri Zaidi
that no independent witness has been
examined except P.W. 1 and, therefore, they
can not be convicted as per section 34 IPC. It
is further submitted that Yasin, Sahab Alam
and Kallu are on bail.

10. Learned counsel for the appellants
has relied on the judgements of Aflatoon Vs.
State of U.P. passed on 18.8.2017 in
Criminal Appeal No. 2108 of 2003; Arvind
Sharma Vs. State of U.P. passed on
19.8.2017 in Criminal Appeal No. 5441 of
2003; Munna @ Nikkhlesh Sharma Vs.
State of U.P. passed on 31.07.2017 in
Criminal Appeal No. 3032 of 2004 and
Furqan Vs. State of U.P. passed on
31.08.2017 in Criminal Appeal No. 5095 of
2004, so as to contend that the case does not
fall within the definition of section 34 I.P.C.
The persons who have been named as
accused
did
not
carry
any
weapon.
Unfortunately, the other except P.W. 2, who
has been injured, is not examined. The F.I.R.
also no where brings out that it was an assault
by deadly weapon.

11. Per contra the counsel for the
State has heavily relied on the judgement of
the trial Court. He has further submitted
that the circumstances go to show that the
chain of circumstances is against the
appellants. The evidence of altercation
between the deceased and the accused is
borne out from the record itself. The
presence of eye witnesses cannot be said to
be vitiated in any manner.

12. It would be relevant for us to take
ourselves to the evidence of PW-3 first.
The lacerated wound is 1.3 cm on the
injured can be said to be caused by a
weapon as opined in oral testimony. He has
also been cross-examined. The doctor
Rakesh Kumar's evidence clinches the
2 All. Shahab Alam & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
693
issue. It can be seen that one of the injured,
namely,
Mohd.
Tajul
(PW-2)
was
examined on oath but the other injured,
namely, Gulfam was not examined on oath.

13. So as to make out a case under
Section 304(I)/34 I.P.C. conduct of accused
and the witnesses must be also looked into.

14. We are concerned with the
punishment. The involvement of the
appellants is proved beyond reasonable
doubt. However, whether they had same
object and intention of doing away with
will have to be seen on the touchstones of
the principles enunciated by the Apex
Court and reiterated in Subed Ali and Ors.
Vs. State of Assam, 2020 (10) SCC 517
and the judgement in the case of Ilangovan
vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2020) 10 SCC
533.

15. The evidence which is before us
goes to show that there was earlier dispute
regarding land by and in between the
parties. The deceased along with the
injured had gone to the house of accused
where they have altercation and one single
blow was given by Samoon which proved
fatal. The other three cannot be said to have
had a common intention even Samoon has
not been held guilty for offence u/s 302
I.P.C.

16. The learned Judge, in our opinion
can be said to have not sifted the evidence
as should be done for convicting people
with the aid of Section 34 I.P.C. The act of
all the accused cannot be said to have
resulted out of what is known as common
intention, therefore, the fact that four
people were present but there was any
existence of common intention or there was
commission
of
overt
act
was
not
established in the present case. Only
presence of the accused at the scene of
occurrence is there. There was no common
intention
nor
there
was
collective
participation. The offence was committed
without any common intention and all they
had attacked the other injured in different
ways. The motive was absent and relevance
of proving motive is on the State as held by
the Apex Court in Subal Ghorai vs. State
of West Bengal, (2013) 4 SCC 607.

17. At the end of the oral submissions
and the judgements cited by the counsel for
the appellants, two things emerge - one that
the incident occurred and it cannot be said
that this is a case of clean acquittal. The
reason being the presence of all the accused
has been identified, which brings down the
edifice of Sri Zaidi's submission that the
incident occurred at night and there was no
light. The submission of learned counsel
for State that they were known to each
other is accepted. It is submitted by counsel
for appellants that the court below has
convicted all accused under Section 304(I)
I.PC. read with section 34 I.P.C.

18. In our opinion, we have to go into
the genesis of the incident so as to see
whether there was a common intention of
doing away with the deceased as the
deceased and other injured had come to the
home of Samoon. It is nobody's case that
Samoon and all were waiting for the
injured to come and it is submitted that it
cannot be said that there was any common
intention to injure the injured or do away
with the deceased.

19. The ingredients of Section 34 read
as follows:

"34. Acts done by several persons in
furtherance of common intention.--When a
criminal act is done by several persons in
694 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
furtherance of the common intention of all,
each of such persons is liable for that act in
the same manner as if it were done by him
alone."

20. It was held in Jai Bhagwan Vs.
State of Haryana, 1999 Cr.L.J. (S.C.), that
to convict accused with aid of Section 34
I.P.C., apart from the fact that there should be
two or more accused, two factors must be
established:

1. Common intention, and

2. Participation of the accused in the
commission of an offence is not a must.

21. In Parasa Raja Manikyala Rao and
another Vs. State of A.P., (2003) 12 SCC
306, the Apex Court has held as under :-

"In appeal, the High Court affirmed the
conviction of A-1 but reversed the acquittal of
the appellants and held them guilty of the
offence punishable under Section 302 read
with Section 34 I.P.C.

Section 34 really means that if two or
more persons intentionally do a common
thing jointly, it is just the same as if each of
them had done it individually."

22. In State of Haryana Vs. Tej Ram,
1980 (Supp) SCC 323, the Apex Court has
held as under:-

"These circumstances unerringly point
to the conclusion that both the appellant and
his brother had a common intention to cause
death of the deceased and in pursuance of
such intention and a prearranged plan, they
participated in the assault on the deceased
killing him at the spot. Therefore, the
appellant must be convicted under Section
302 read with Section 34 I.P.C.

If the author of the two injuries on the
head of H was a single person, then it was
difficult to found upon this basis the
conviction of others with the aid of Section
34"

23. In Ram Prasad and others Vs.
The State of U.P., (1976) 1 SCC 406, the
Apex Court has held as under:-

"That all the four appellants came
together to the scene of occurrence does
not show that H and K shared the common
intention of R and M at the time of their
giving the lathi blows. That all the
appellants ran away in the same direction
is inconsequential. That the lathis would be
effectively used in forcible occupation of
land would have been relevant under
Section 149 I.P.C. and not under Section
34"

24. Once we hold that there is no
attraction of Section 34 I.P.C., we will have
to see what was the role played by each
accused. The incident cannot be said to
have happened on account of sharing of a
common intention as submitted by the
counsel for the State as the incident was
never pre-meditated. There was a heated
altercation
between
the
parties.
The
incident occurred at the residence of
Samoon, meaning thereby that he had not
gone to the place of the incident. However,
we are unable to accept the submission of
Sri Jadaun that the complainant and other
injured were at the aggression.

25. As far as role of all the accused is
concerned, it can be seen that they have
injured other witnesses as is clear from the
statements of PW-3, PW-2 and PW-1 and ,
therefore, the offence which they have
committed will also have to be classified.
They were armed with what can be said to
be weapons. They have caused what can be
said to be grievous hurt. Sections 319 and
2 All. Shahab Alam & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
695
320 I.P.C. read with Sections 324 and 323
I.P.C. read as follows:

"319. Hurt.--Whoever causes bodily
pain, disease or infirmity to any person is
said to cause hurt.

320. Grievous hurt.--The following
kinds of hurt only are designated as
"grievous":--

(First) -- Emasculation.

(Secondly) --Permanent privation of
the sight of either eye.

(Thirdly) -- Permanent privation of the
hearing of either ear,

(Fourthly) --Privation of any member
or joint.

(Fifthly) -- Destruction or permanent
impairing of the powers of any member or
joint.

(Sixthly) -- Permanent disfiguration of
the head or face.

(Seventhly) --Fracture or dislocation
of a bone or tooth.

(Eighthly) --Any hurt which endangers
life or which causes the sufferer to be
during the space of twenty days in severe
bodily pain, or unable to follow his
ordinary pursuits.

324. Voluntarily causing hurt by
dangerous weapons or means.--Whoever,
except in the case provided for by section
334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of
any instrument for shooting, stabbing or
cutting, or any instrument which, used as
weapon of offence, is likely to cause death,
or by means of fire or any heated
substance, or by means of any poison or
any corrosive substance, or by means of
any explosive substance or by means of any
substance which it is deleterious to the
human body to in-hale, to swallow, or to
receive into the blood, or by means of any
animal,
shall
be
punished
with
imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to three years, or
with fine, or with both.

323.
Punishment
for
voluntarily
causing hurt.

--Whoever, except in the case provided
for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt,
shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may
extend to one year, or with fine which may
extend to one thousand rupees, or with
both."

26. Section 34 of the IPC presupposes, there must be common intention
and participation of the accused in
commission of an offence.

2. Participation of the accused in the
commission of an offence.

Criminal intention is the highest form
of blameworthiness of mind or mens rea.
Intention occupies a symbolic place in
criminal law. As the highest form of the
mental element, it applies in murder and
the gravest form of crimes in the criminal
justice system. The terms ''intention' is not
defined in Indian Penal Code but section
34 of IPC deals with common intention.
The intention made among several people
to do something wrong and act done in that
manner in which it was formulated comes
under the sanction of Section 34 of IPC

The
distinction
between
similar
intention or criminal intention was brought
forth by the Supreme Court in Pandurang V
State
of
Hyderabad.
Supreme
Court
emphasized on this point that prior concert
need not be something always very much
prior to the incident, but could well be
something that may develop on the spot, on
te spur of the moment. In this case
Ramchander Shelke (deceased) with his
wife's sister went to the field. While
Ramchander went to the river side the five
696 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
persons
including
thre
appellant
(Pandurang, Tuka, and Bilia) attacked him.

27. On appreciation of evidence and
the decisions cited before us, we are
convinced that the prosecution does not
bring home that accused are required to be
punished with aid of section 34 I.P.C.
There was no intention to any act which
was well planned. The incident occurred all
of a sudden.

28. In State of Haryana Vs. Tej
Ram, AIR 1980 SC 1496, it is held that
circumstances which un-erringly comes to
the conclusion that accused had common
intention to cause death only then they
must be convicted. We are convinced that
the offence which is made out is not under
section 304(1) read with 34 I.P.C. The
decision in Ram Prasad Vs. State of U.P.
will help the accused.

29. This takes us to the question of
punishment.
As
far
as
Samoon
is
concerned, he is in jail for more than 14
years. We substitute the life imprisonment
to that of already undergone and he shall be
released forthwith if not required in any
other offence. However, this would be
coupled with the fine imposed by the court
below and he would pay the total fine out
of which 80 percent will go to the family of
the bereaved. The fine be deposited within
12 weeks of his release failing which he
shall
undergo
6
months
simple
imprisonment in default.

30. As long time has elapsed, the
other co-accused, namely, Shahab Alam,
Yaseen and Kallu, whose role as scribed
about is not that of commission of murder
or rather murder amounting to culpable
homicide but have caused injuries which
would fall within the provisions of Section
324 I.P.C. The punishment is that which
they have undergone and the fine would be
enhanced to Rs. 5000/- to each looking to
their age, failing which three months
further imprisonment.

31. The appeals are partly allowed.
As far as Samoon is concerned he be
released from jail immediately if not
wanted in any other offence.

32. The record be sent back to the
trial court.

33. The judgement be sent to the jail
authorities.

34. The fine, which is already
deposited by the accused, will be given a
set off.
----------
(2021)02ILR A696
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.01.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Crl. Revision No. 1961 of 2016

Munshi Singh ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opp. Party

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava, Sri P.N. Singh

Counsel for the Opp. Party:
A.G.A.

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 401/397 - Indian
Penal
Code,1860-Sections
279,
304A-
upholdig
the
sentence-the
informant
boarded
a
'Jugar'(
an
unauthorised
vehicle) of the revisionist-the vehicle