# Shailendra Singh v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2023) 2 ILRA 846
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-02-09
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1181 of 2003
- **Bench:** Suresh Kumar Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shailendra-singh-v-state-of-u-p-49748
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,1860 -
Sections 324 & 307 - voluntarily causing hurt
by dangerous means or weapons - Criminal
Procedure
Code,1973
-
Section
357
-
Probation of the Offenders Act, 1958 - Section
5 - Power of court to require released
offenders to pay compensation and costs - On
29.3.1992 accused opened fire, due to which
the first informant & other persons got injuries
on the body - Court convicted & sentenced the
appellant u/s 307 I.P.C. to undergo 5 years
rigorous imprisonment - Held - In the
supplementary report doctor opined that all
the injured got gun shot injuries by some fire
weapon but injuries were simple in nature - All
the injuries were inflicted on non vital part of
the body - injuries were not life threatening -
conviction of appellant altered from Section
307 I.P.C. to Section 324 I.P.C. - appellant had
no previous criminal history - appellant
neighbour of the injured - matter pertained to
the year, 1992 thus, 31 years passed -
appellant and injured well rooted in the
society - no useful purpose would be served to
send the appellant in jail again - appellant
deserves
for
probation
-
compensation
awarded
to
the
injured
persons
-
compensation of Rs. 40,000/- imposed upon
the appellant and out of Rs. 40,000/-, Rs.
10,000/- be paid to the each injured persons
(Para 11, 17)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad Vs St. of Mah. (2013) 6
SCC 770

## Text

846 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to in section 138 for the discharge, in whole
or in part, to any debt or other liability.

He further submitted that there is no
illegality or irregularity or jurisdictional error
in the impugned orders passed by the learned
trial court as well as learned Revisional Court
and disputed question of fact cannot be gone
into while deciding the petition under Article
227 of the Constitution of India.

8. M/s. Indus Airways Pvt. Ltd. &
Ors Versus M/s. Magnum Aviation Pvt.
Ltd. & Anr. (2014) 12 SCC 539 has interalia held that it is settled proposition of law, if
no legal liability exists on the date of cheque
was issued then offence under Section 138 of
the N.I. Act would not be attracted with
respect to the said cheque. The explanation
appended to Section 138 explains the
meaning of the expression 'debt or other
liability' for the purpose of Section 138. This
expression means a legally enforceable debt
or other liability. Section 138 treats dishonour
of cheque due to default of drawer, as an
offence, if the cheque has been issued in
discharge of any debt or other liability
incurred by him. The explanation leaves no
manner of doubt that to attract an offence
under Section 138, there should be legally
enforceable debt or other liability subsisting
on the date of drawal of the cheque. In other
words, drawal of the cheque in discharge of
existing or past adjudicated liability is sine
qua non for bringing home an offence under
Section 138 in Pulsive Technologies P.Ltd
Vs. State Of Gujarat & Ors Hon'ble Supreme
Court on 22.08.2014 observed that Even
"stop payment" instructions issued to the
bank are held to make a person liable for
offence punishable under Section 138 of the
NI Act in case cheque is dishonoured on that
count. Once the cheque is issued by the
drawer, a presumption under Section 139
must follow and merely because the drawer
issues a notice to the drawee or to the bank
for stoppage of the payment, it will not
preclude an action under Section 138 of the
NI Act by the drawee or the holder of the
cheques in due course, if the accused shows
that in his account there were sufficient
funds to clear the amount of the cheque at
the time of presentation of the cheque for
encashment at the drawer bank and that the
stop-payment notice had been issued
because of other valid causes including that
there was no existing debt or liability at the
time
of
presentation
of
cheque
for
encashment, then offence under Section
138 would not be made out. The important
thing is that the burden of so proving would
be on the accused. Thus, a court cannot
quash a complaint on this ground. Whether
any money is paid by the accused to the
complainant is a matter of evidence. The
accused
has
ample
opportunity
to
probabilise his defence.

9. In the light of above discussions and
observation of judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court the present petition under
Article 277 of the Constitution of India is
devoid of merit or any force is liable to be
dismissed.

10. The petition is dismissed and the
impugned order is affirmed accordingly.
----------
(2023) 2 ILRA 846
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 09.02.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1181 of 2003

Shailendra Singh ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent
2 All. Shailendra Singh Vs. State of U.P.
847
Counsel for the Appellant:
R.B.L. Shukla, Neeraj Sahu, S.H. Ibrahim

Counsel for the Respondent:
Govt. Advocate

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,1860 -
Sections 324 & 307 - voluntarily causing hurt
by dangerous means or weapons - Criminal
Procedure
Code,1973
-
Section
357
-
Probation of the Offenders Act, 1958 - Section
5 - Power of court to require released
offenders to pay compensation and costs - On
29.3.1992 accused opened fire, due to which
the first informant & other persons got injuries
on the body - Court convicted & sentenced the
appellant u/s 307 I.P.C. to undergo 5 years
rigorous imprisonment - Held - In the
supplementary report doctor opined that all
the injured got gun shot injuries by some fire
weapon but injuries were simple in nature - All
the injuries were inflicted on non vital part of
the body - injuries were not life threatening -
conviction of appellant altered from Section
307 I.P.C. to Section 324 I.P.C. - appellant had
no previous criminal history - appellant
neighbour of the injured - matter pertained to
the year, 1992 thus, 31 years passed -
appellant and injured well rooted in the
society - no useful purpose would be served to
send the appellant in jail again - appellant
deserves
for
probation
-
compensation
awarded
to
the
injured
persons
-
compensation of Rs. 40,000/- imposed upon
the appellant and out of Rs. 40,000/-, Rs.
10,000/- be paid to the each injured persons
(Para 11, 17)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad Vs St. of Mah. (2013) 6
SCC 770

(Delivered by Hon'ble Suresh Kumar
Gupta, J.)

1. Heard Mr. S.H. Ibrahim, learned
counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A.
for the State as well as perused the record.

2. The present appeal has been
preferred against the judgment and order
dated 26.7.2003 passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge Court No. 7, Lucknow in
S.T. No. 584 of 1998 arising out of crime
no. 151 of 1992 concerning Police Station-
Hasanganj, District- Lucknow convicting
and sentencing the appellant under Section
307 I.P.C. to undergo 5 years rigorous
imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000/- in
default of payment of fine to undergo 2
months simple imprisonment.

3. The brief facts of the present case
emerges as such F.I.R. of the alleged
incident has been lodged by first informant,
Raj Kumar Singh with the allegation that
on 29.3.1992 at about 9:30 p.m. some
persons had come at the house of informant
for
celebrating
'Holi'
festival.
After
celebrating the Holi when first informant
and his elder brother were going to see off
then on the way son of Shiv Raj Singh
opened fire from Awasthi Jee's roof with
intention to kill. Due to the alleged incident
of firing, the first informant, his elder
brother and other persons have got several
injuries on the body. On the basis of above
allegations, the F.I.R. was lodged against
Shailendra Singh(the present appellant), s/o
Shiv Raj Singh under Sections 324/307
I.P.C.

4. Investigation of the present case
was entrusted to the Investigating Officer.
During the course of investigation, the
name of Shailendra Singh(the present
appellant), s/o Shiv Raj Singh first time
came into light. Chiranjeet Lal, Mahendra
Pratap Singh, K.K. Singh and R.K. Singh
have got injuries in the present incident.
During the course of the investigation,
Investigating Officer collected the injury
report of all the injured persons and
prepared site map of incident. The
848 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Investigating Officer also recorded the
statement of witnesses and after completing
the formalities of the investigation filed
charge sheet against the appellant under
Section 307 I.P.C. Charge-sheet was
submitted in the Magistrate Court wherein
the case was committed to the court of
sessions on 16.4.1998 where it was
registered as S.T. No. 584 of 1998. The
charges were framed against the appellant
under Section 307 I.P.C. on 15.6.1998. The
charges were read over to the appellant in
Hindi. The appellant denied the charges
levelled against him and claimed to be
tried.

5. During the course of the trial
following witnesses were examined by the
prosecution, which are read as under:-

(i) P.W.-1 Raj Kumar Singh, who is
complainant
and
also
injured,
has
substantiated the entire version of the
prosecution. Thus, the prosecution fully
established the case against the appellant.
P.W.-1 has proved the written report as
Ext. Ka-1.

(ii) P.W.-2-Krishna Kumar Singh is
also another injured eye-witness.

(iii) P.W.-3 - Mahendra Pratap Singh
is also another injured eye- witness.

(iv) P.W.-4-Om Prakash Srivastava,
who is also radiologist, has proved the Xray report of Mahendra Pratap Singh as
Ext. Ka-2, X-ray report of Krishna Kumar
Singh as Ext. Ka-3 and X-ray report of Raj
Kumar Singh as Ext. Ka-4.

(iv)
P.W.-5-
N.K.
Kapil,
the
Investigating Officer, who proved the site
plan as Ext. Ka-5, charge-sheet as Ext. Ka6, chik F.I.R. as Ext. Ka-7 and G.D. No. 62
as Ext. Ka-8.

Injury
report
and
supplementary
affidavit of the injured was also admitted
by the prosecution under Section 294
Cr.P.C. The medical report of Chiranjeet
Lal was Ext. Ka-9, medical report of
Mahendra Pratap Singh was Ext. Ka-10,
medical report of Krishna Kumar Singh
was Ext. Ka-11, medical report of R.K.
Singh was Ext. Ka-12. X-ray report of the
Chiranjeet
Lal
was
Ext.
Ka-13,
supplementary report of Krishna Kumar
Singh was Ext. Ka-14 and supplementary
report of Raj Kumar Singh was Ext. Ka-15.

Thus, the prosecution relied upon oral
evidences of P.W.-1 to P.W.-5 and relied
upon documentary evidence of Ext. Ka-1 to
Ext. Ka-15.

6. After recording the testimony of
the witnesses, the statements of the
accused/appellant
was
recorded
under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. by the trial court
explaining the entire evidence and other
incriminating circumstances against the
appellant. In the statement recorded under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. , the appellant denied
the entire prosecution story in toto he has
stated that the appellant has been falsely
implicated by the first informant due to
personal vengeance. He also denied open
fire in order to commit murder. But he did
not choose to lead any evidence in his
defence.

7. After hearing learned counsel for
both the parties and appreciating the oral
and documentary evidence available on
record, the learned trial court convicted the
accused/appellant
as
aforesaid.
Being
aggrieved with the order dated 26.7.2003,
the present appeal has been filed by the
appellant.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that in this matter four persons
have
got
injuries,
which
shall
be
established by supplementary report of Ext.
2 All. Shailendra Singh Vs. State of U.P.
849
Ka-14
and
Ext.
Ka-15.
In
the
supplementary affidavit doctor opined that
all the injured have got gun shot injuries by
some fire weapon and clearly stated that in
supplementary report that injuries was
simple in nature. As per injury report only
metallic density was found. So, learned
counsel for the appellant argued that in this
matter four persons have got injuries but
Chiranjeet Lal,who was also injured, was
not produced by the prosecution to prove
its case. Learned counsel for the appellant
also argued that prosecution miserably
failed to establish the motive. He further
submitted that occurrence has taken place
in the night and there is no source of light
is mentioned in the F.I.R., so the identity of
the appellant is also doubtful. Learned
counsel for the appellant submitted that if
the court came to the conclusion that the
alleged injuries was caused by the appellant
then leniency be shown in favour of the
appellant. Lastly, learned counsel for the
appellant submitted that the appellant is
neighbour of the injured and the matter is
pertained to the year, 1992 and thus, 31
years have passed.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant
further submitted that the injuries, which
were inflicted to the injured, are simple in
nature. All the injuries which were inflicted
to the injured are on non vital part of the
body.
The
injuries
were
not
life
threatening. If the case of the prosecution is
accepted as such, the offence does not
travel beyond the scope of Section 324
I.P.C. Learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that benefit of probation be given
to the appellant, therefore, he prays to
release the appellant on probation.

10. Learned A.G.A. vehemently
opposed and submitted before the Court
that the prosecution has fully established
the
charges
against
the
appellants.
Therefore,
learned
trial
court
after
appreciating the evidence available on
record rightly convicted the appellants.

11. Considering the nature of injuries,
which were inflicted to the appellant, I am
of the considered opinion that injuries
caused to the appellant by the fire arm were
simple in nature. As per supplementary
report of the injuries, I am also of the
considered opinion that offence does not
travel beyond Section 324 I.P.C. Therefore,
the conviction of appellant is altered from
Section 307 I.P.C. to Section 324 I.P.C.
Thus, the conviction of the appellant under
Section 324 I.P.C. is hereby confirmed. It is
also an admitted fact that period of
incarceration of the appellant is three
months. The appellant has no previous
criminal history. Presently, the appellant
and injured are well rooted in the society.
31 years had already passed and no useful
purpose will be served to send the appellant
in jail again. Therefore, considering the
entire facts and circumstances, appellant
deserves for probation.

12. Since learned counsel for the
appellant restricted his arguments to grant
benefit of probation, therefore, in these
circumstances, It would be appropriate to
quote Section 360 Cr.P.C., 361 Cr.PC.
reads as follows:-

Section 360 Cr.P.C. reads as follows:

"360. Order to release on probation of
good conduct or after admonition :-

(1) When any person not under twenty
one years of age is convicted of an offence
punishable
with
fine
only
or
with
imprisonment for a term of seven years or
less, or when any person under twenty-one
years of age or any woman is convicted of
850 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
an offence not punishable with death or
imprisonment for life, and no previous
conviction is proved against the offender, if
it appears to the Court before which he is
convicted, regard being had to the age,
Character or antecedents of the offender,
and to the circumstances in which the
offence was committed, that it is expedient
that the offender should be released on
probation of good conduct, 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, where any first offender
is convicted by a Magistrate of the second
class not specially empowered by the High
Court, and the Magistrate is of opinion that
the powers conferred by this section should
be exercised, he shall record his opinion to
that effect, and submit the proceedings to a
Magistrate of the first class, forwarding the
accused to, or taking bail for his
appearance before such Magistrate, who
shall dispose of the case in the manner
provided by sub-section (2).

(2) Where proceedings are submitted
to a Magistrate of the first class as provided
by sub-section (1), such Magistrate may
thereupon pass such sentence or make such
order as he might have passed or made if
the case had originally been heard by him,
and, if he thinks further inquiry or
additional evidence on any point to be
necessary, he may make such inquiry or
take such evidence himself or direct such
inquiry or evidence to be made or taken.

(3) In any case in which a person is
convicted of theft, theft in a building,
dishonest misappropriation, cheating or any
offence under the Indian Penal Code (45 of
1860), punishable with not more than two
years,
imprisonment
or
any
offence
punishable with fine only and no previous
conviction is proved against him, the Court
before which he is so convicted may, if it
thinks fit, having regard to the age,
character, antecedents or physical or mental
condition of the offender and to the trivial
nature of the offence or any extenuating
circumstances under which the offence was
committed, instead of sentencing him to
any punishment, release him after due
admonition.

(4) An order under this section may be
made by any Appellate Court or by the
High Court or Court of Session when
exercising its powers of revision.

(5) When an order has been made
under this section in respect of any
offender, the High Court or Court of
Session may, on appeal when there is a
right of appeal to such Court, or when
exercising its powers of revision, set aside
such order, and in lieu, thereof pass
sentence on such offender according to
law: Provided that the High Court or Court
of Session shall not under this subsection
inflict a greater punishment than might
have been inflicted by the Court by which
the offender was convicted.

(6) The provisions of Sections 121,
124 and 373 shall, so far as may be, apply
in the case of sureties offered in pursuance
of the provisions of this section.

(7) The Court before directing the
release of an offender under sub-section
(1), shall be satisfied that an offender or his
surety (if any) has a fixed place of abode or
regular occupation in the place for which
the Court acts or in which the offender is
likely to live during the period named for
the observance of the conditions.

(8) If the Court which convicted the
offender, or a Court which could have dealt
with the offender in respect of his original
2 All. Shailendra Singh Vs. State of U.P.
851
offence, is satisfied that the offender has
failed to observe any of the conditions of
his recognisance, it may issue a warrant for
his apprehension.

(9) An offender, when apprehended on
any such warrant shall be brought forthwith
before the Court issuing warrant, and such
Court may either remand him in custody
until the case is heard or admit him to bail
with a sufficient surety conditioned on his
appearing for sentence and Court may, after
hearing the case, pass sentence.

(10) Nothing in this section shall
affect the provisions of the Probation of
Offenders Act, 1958 (20 of 1951), the
Children Act, 1960 (60 of 1960) or any
other law for the time being in force for the
treatment, training or rehabilitation of
youthful offenders."

Section 361 Cr.P.C. reads as under:-

361. Special reasons to be recorded in
certain cases. Where in any case the Court
could have dealt with,-

(a) an accused person under section
360 or under the provisions of the
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (20 of
1958 ), or

(b) a youthful offender under the
Children Act, 1960 (60 of 1960 ), or any
other law for the time being in force for the
treatment, training or rehabilitation of
youthful offenders, but has not done so, it
shall record in its judgment the special
reasons for not having done so.

Section 3, 4 and 5 of the Probation of
First Offenders Act reads as under:-

Section 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.

Section 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
852 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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 subsection (1), the court shall take into
consideration the report, if any, of the
probation officer concerned in relation to the
case.

(3) When an order under sub-section (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.

Section 5-Power of court to require
released offenders to pay compensation
and costs.

(1) The court directing the release of
an offender under section 3 or section 4,
may, if it thinks fit, make at the same time
a further order directing him to pay--

(a) such compensation as the court
thinks reasonable for loss or injury caused
to any person by the commission of the
offence; and

(b) such costs of the proceedings as
the court thinks reasonable.

(2) The amount ordered to be paid
under sub-section(1) may be recovered as a
fine in accordance with the provisions of
sections 386 and 387 of the Code.

(3) A civil court trying any suit,
arising out of the same matter for which the
offender is prosecuted, shall take into
account any amount paid or recovered as
compensation under sub-section (1) in
awarding damages.

13.

There
are
other
legislative
requirements that need to be kept in mind. The
Probation of Offenders Act provides, in Section
5 thereof for payment of compensation to the
victim of a crime (as does Section 357 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure). Yet, additional
changes were brought about in the Code of
Criminal Procedure in 2006 providing for a
victim compensation scheme and for additional
rights to the victim of a crime, including the
right to file an appeal against the grant of
inadequate compensation. How often have the
Courts used these provisions?

14. In Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad v. State
of
Maharashtra
MANU/SC/0461/2013:
(2013) 6 SCC 770 and Jitendra Singh v. State
of U.P. MANU/SC/0679/2013 : (2013) 11
SCC 193 the Court held that consideration of
grant of compensation to the victim of a crime
is mandatory, in the following words taken
from Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad:

"While the award or refusal of
compensation in a particular case may be
within the court's discretion, there exists a
2 All. Zakir Hussain Vs. State of U.P.
853
mandatory duty on the court to apply its
mind to the question in every criminal case.
Application of mind to the question is best
disclosed
by
recording
reasons
for
awarding/refusing compensation."

15. Section 357 Cr.P.C. and Section 5
of the Offenders Act empowers the Court
to award compensation to the victim(s) of
the offence in respect of the loss/injury
suffered. The object of the section is to
meet the ends of justice in a better way.
This section was enacted to reassure the
victim that he is not forgotten in the
criminal justice system. The amount of
compensation to be awarded under Section
357 Cr.P.C. depends upon the nature of
crime, extent of loss/damage suffered and
the capacity of the accused to pay, which
the Court has to conduct a summary inquiry
as well as considering the submission of
learned counsel for appellant as earlier, this
Court is of the view that benefit of Section
4 of the Probation of First Offender Act,
1958 should be provided to the appellants.

16. Thus the appeal is partly
allowed. The conviction as directed by
trial court is altered from 307 I.P.C. to
324 I.P.C. and on the point of sentence it
is directed to be released the appellant
on probation and under section 4 of the
U.P. of the Probation of Offenders Act with
stipulated condition that he will keep peace
and good conduct for one year subject to
furnishing personal bond of Rs.40,000/-
and two sureties of the like amount before
the Court.

17. Considering the law propounded
by Hon'ble Apex Court and as per
provisions of Section 357 Cr.P.C. and
Section 5 of the Probation of the Offenders
Act, 1958, I am of the view that
compensation should be awarded to the
injured persons, namely, Raj Kumar Singh,
Krishna Kumar Singh, Mahendra Pratap
Singh
and
Chiranjeet
Lal.
So
the
compensation of Rs. 40,000/-is imposed
upon the appellant and out of Rs. 40,000/-,
Rs. 10,000/- be paid to the each injured
persons, namely , Kumar Singh, Krishna
Kumar Singh, Mahendra Pratap Singh and
Chiranjeet Lal. In case of death of any
injured persons, same shall be payable to
legal heirs of the injured persons. If the
appellant fails to pay alleged amount
within fifteen days from the date of
production of certified copy of this
order, then he shall undergo simple
imprisonment of one year.

18. Thus, the appeal is dismissed on
the point of conviction and partly
allowed on the point of sentence.

19. Office is directed to communicate
this order to the trial court concerned. The
trial court record be sent back.
----------
(2023) 2 ILRA 853
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.01.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE AJIT SINGH, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 4093 of 2018

Zakir Hussain ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Virendra Kumar Gupta, Sri Lal Mani Singh, Sri
Noor Mohammad, Sri Irshad Mohammad

Counsel for the Respondent:
A.G.A., Sri Brijesh Nath Rai, Sri Rahul Mishra