# Shivnath v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2023) 10 ILRA 978
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-09-20
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 84 of 2017
- **Bench:** Surya Prakash Kesarwani, Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shivnath-v-state-of-u-p-49368
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 302 & 498-A - Indian Evidence
Act, 1872 - Section 134 - Criminal Appeal
10 All. Shivnath Vs. State of U.P.
979
- Murder - Conviction Based on Solitary
Eyewitness - Medical Evidence - AnteMortem Injuries - Post-Mortem Burns -
The appellant, Shivnath, was convicted under
Section 302 IPC for the murder of his wife,
Patali, and sentenced to life imprisonment with
a fine of Rs. 10,000, with an additional year of
imprisonment
for
non-payment,
by
the
Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No.
1, Chandauli, on 16.11.2016. The appeal
challenged the conviction, alleging lack of
motive and intention.

Held: (1) The appeal was dismissed, upholding
the
conviction
and
sentence.
(2)
The
prosecution's case rested on the testimony of
P.W.-3 (Premsheela, daughter of the deceased
and accused), a reliable solitary eyewitness,
corroborated by medical evidence showing antemortem injuries (contusion on left nipple and
contused swelling on skull) causing death by
coma, with post-mortem burns (over 80% of
body) indicating the deceased was set ablaze
after death. (3) The absence of soot particles in
the trachea confirmed the deceased was not
alive when burned, contradicting the defense's
claim of an accidental fire. (4) The appellant's
presence at the scene was undisputed, and he
failed to explain the ante-mortem injuries. (5)
P.W.-2 (Ghanshyam, son of the deceased and
accused) turned hostile, and the testimonies of
P.W.-4, P.W.-5, D.W.-1, and D.W.-2 (supporting
an accidental fire) were unreliable as they
contradicted scientific evidence. (6) Section 134
of the Indian Evidence Act allows conviction
based
on
a
single
reliable
witness,
as
established in Vadivelu Thevar Vs St. of Madras
(AIR 1957 SC 614), Sunil Kumar Vs St. Govt. of
NCT of Delhi (2003) 11 SCC 367, Mahesh Vs St.
of Madhya Pradesh (2011) 9 SCC 626, and Amar
Singh Vs St. (NCT of Delhi) (2020) 19 SCC 165).
(7) The appellant's claim that the death resulted
from a scuffle without intent was rejected due
to uncontradicted evidence of P.W.-3 and
medical findings. (8) No direction was issued for
remission, but the appellant was permitted to
appl for it under law, as per Raggu Baniya Vs St.
of U.P. (Criminal Appeal No. 544 of 2010,
decided on 26.10.2021).

Case Law Cited:

## Text

978 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Consolidation
and
the
order
dated
10.7.2015 is still intact. This Court has also
noticed the fact that the applicant has
annexed the copy of the questionnaire,
wherein it has been disclosed that the order
dated 10.7.2015 is still continuing.

15. It is trite law that once the civil
proceedings is pending before the court of
civil competence and interim order is
passed protecting the property in question
therein, the proceedings under Section 145
Cr.P.C. is not permissible. This view has
been taken by the Apex Court in the cases
of Ram Sumer Puri Mahant (supra) and
Mahant Ram Saran Dass (supra).

16. This Court is also not unmindful to one
of the aspect of the law that there cannot be
a strait-jacket formula for coming to the
conclusion that whether there is actual
apprehension of breach of peace or
emergent situation so as to invoke the
power under Section 145 Cr.P.C. but if title
is clear and there is no dispute regarding
possession and the protection has already
been granted under a civil proceeding with
respect to property in question, the power
under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. cannot be
exercised.

17. So far as the instant matter is
concerned, a title suite is pending regarding
the
land
in
question,
before
the
Consolidtion Officer and vide order dated
10.7.2015, parties are directed to maintain
status quo and, thus, admittedly, there is an
interim protection and, therefore, the case of
the applicant is squarely covered with the
Judgment and ratio as discussed above.

18. In view of the above submissions and
discussions,the
impugned
order
dated
29.4.2023 passed by the Sub Divisional
Magistrate, Sirauli Gauspur, District Barabanki
in Case No.886 of 2023 are hereby set aside.

19. It is expected that the parties shall
follow the order dated 10.7.2015 passed by the
Consolidation Officer until it remains in
operation and it is open for the opposite party
no.2 that if he has any grievance regarding any
of proceedings before the court below, he may
approach
the
appropriate
forum
while
challenging the same. Further legal recourse is
always open to the parties.

20. With the aforesaid observations,
instant application is hereby allowed.

21. It is clarified that the observations
made hereinabove, would have no bearing on
the merits of the case, pending before any court
of law.
----------
(2023) 10 ILRA 978
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.09.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI,
J.
THE HON'BLE MS. NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 84 of 2017

Shivnath ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Ramji Singh Patel, Sri Swayamanand
Sisodiya, Sri Vijay Gopal

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 302 & 498-A - Indian Evidence
Act, 1872 - Section 134 - Criminal Appeal
10 All. Shivnath Vs. State of U.P.
979
- Murder - Conviction Based on Solitary
Eyewitness - Medical Evidence - AnteMortem Injuries - Post-Mortem Burns -
The appellant, Shivnath, was convicted under
Section 302 IPC for the murder of his wife,
Patali, and sentenced to life imprisonment with
a fine of Rs. 10,000, with an additional year of
imprisonment
for
non-payment,
by
the
Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No.
1, Chandauli, on 16.11.2016. The appeal
challenged the conviction, alleging lack of
motive and intention.

Held: (1) The appeal was dismissed, upholding
the
conviction
and
sentence.
(2)
The
prosecution's case rested on the testimony of
P.W.-3 (Premsheela, daughter of the deceased
and accused), a reliable solitary eyewitness,
corroborated by medical evidence showing antemortem injuries (contusion on left nipple and
contused swelling on skull) causing death by
coma, with post-mortem burns (over 80% of
body) indicating the deceased was set ablaze
after death. (3) The absence of soot particles in
the trachea confirmed the deceased was not
alive when burned, contradicting the defense's
claim of an accidental fire. (4) The appellant's
presence at the scene was undisputed, and he
failed to explain the ante-mortem injuries. (5)
P.W.-2 (Ghanshyam, son of the deceased and
accused) turned hostile, and the testimonies of
P.W.-4, P.W.-5, D.W.-1, and D.W.-2 (supporting
an accidental fire) were unreliable as they
contradicted scientific evidence. (6) Section 134
of the Indian Evidence Act allows conviction
based
on
a
single
reliable
witness,
as
established in Vadivelu Thevar Vs St. of Madras
(AIR 1957 SC 614), Sunil Kumar Vs St. Govt. of
NCT of Delhi (2003) 11 SCC 367, Mahesh Vs St.
of Madhya Pradesh (2011) 9 SCC 626, and Amar
Singh Vs St. (NCT of Delhi) (2020) 19 SCC 165).
(7) The appellant's claim that the death resulted
from a scuffle without intent was rejected due
to uncontradicted evidence of P.W.-3 and
medical findings. (8) No direction was issued for
remission, but the appellant was permitted to
appl for it under law, as per Raggu Baniya Vs St.
of U.P. (Criminal Appeal No. 544 of 2010,
decided on 26.10.2021).

Case Law Cited:

1. Vadivelu Thevar Vs St. of Madras, AIR 1957
SC 614;

2. Sunil Kumar Vs St. Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
(2003) 11 SCC 367;

3. Mahesh Vs St. of Madhya Pradesh, (2011) 9
SCC 626;

4. Amar Singh Vs St. (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 19
SCC 165;

5. Raggu Baniya Vs St. of U.P., Criminal Appeal
No. 544 of 2010 (decided on 26.10.2021).

(Delivered by Hon'ble Surya Prakash
Kesarwani, J.
&
 Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla, J.)

1. Heard Sri Swayamanand Sisodiya,
learned Amicus Curiae for the accusedappellant and Sri A.N. Mulla, learned AGA
for the State/ Opposite party.

2. This Criminal Appeal has been
filed praying to set aside the Judgement and
Order dated 16.11.2016 in Sessions Trial
No. 454 of 2008 (State of Uttar Pradesh vs.
Shivnath) relating to Case Crime No. 61 of
2008, under Sections 498-A, 302 IPC,
Police Station Chakiya, District Chandauli,
passed
by
the
Additional
Sessions
Judge/Fast Track Court No. 1, Chandauli,
whereby, the learned Trial Court has
convicted the accused-appellant under
Section 302 IPC and sentenced him with
life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-
and in the event of non-deposit of fine, to
undergo further imprisonment of one year.

3. Briefly stated, facts of the present
case
are
that,
the
accused-appellant
Shivnath was a rickshaw puller. The
deceased 'Patali' was his wife and sister of
the first informant/P.W.-1, Munna son of
Rupa. The first informant/PW-1 lodged an
980 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
FIR being Case Crime No. 61 of 2008,
under Sections 498-A, 302 IPC, Police
Station Chakiya, District Chandauli on
19.03.2008 at about 15.30 hrs. (3.30 P.M.)
alleging that on 19.3.2008, at about 1.00
P.M., his brother-in-law i.e. the accusedappellant Shivnath had committed murder
of his sister 'Patali' and when he received
this
information
from
his
nephew
Ghanshyam on telephone then he went to
the accused's house and found that his sister
'Patali' was lying dead in a burnt condition
outside the hut of the accused-appellant.
Accordingly,
he
lodged
the
First
Information Report in the aforesaid Police
Station. The accused-appellant was arrested
on the next day i.e. 20.03.2008 who had (1)
Superficial burn 4.5 cm x 2 cm on dorsal
surface of right thumb and (2) Superficial
burn 3.5 cm x 2 cm middle phalanx of right
index finger. Blisters found. These burn
injuries were found on examination by the
Medical Officer of CHC Chakiya, District
Chandauli who opined the aforesaid
injuries to be superficial injuries about 1%
simple in nature. Duration about one day.

4. The inquest report of the deceased
'Patali' was prepared on 19.3.2008 between
15.30 hrs to 16:00 hrs. and the autopsy of her
body was conducted by the Medical Officer
on 20.03.2008, who found following antemortem and post-mortem injuries:

Ante-Mortem Injuries

A contusion of 3cm x 4 cm on the
left nipple on dissecting the area having the
contusion, haematoma present on left rib
cage.

Contused swelling of 3cm x 3cm
area present at lower part of back of skull on
dissecting haematoma having clotted blood
present.

The cause of death was shown as
Coma due to ante mortem injury Nos. 1
and 2 however post mortem burn present.

5. There was extensive burn superficial
to deep on head, neck, thorax, abdomen and
limbs except upper part of chest and buttocks
about more than 80%. As per autopsy report,
"shoot particles not found in trachea".

6. Thus, as per medical evidence i.e.
autopsy report, the deceased died due to antemortem injuries no. 1 and 2 (aforequoted)
and not by burn injuries. Non-presence of
shoot particles in trachea also clearly
indicates that when the deceased received
burn injuries, she was not alive.

7. There were two eye witnesses,
namely, P.W.-2, Ghanshyam, son of the
deceased/accused and P.W.-3, Premsheela
daughter of the deceased/accused. During
trial, the P.W-2 turned hostile. The eye
witness, P.W.-3 stated in her examination-inchief that on the date of incident in question,
her younger brother Ghanshyam, Radhey
Shyam and Shiv Kumar, her mother (the
deceased) and her father Shivnath were at
home and there had been scuffle between her
mother and the accused/father. Her father had
beaten her mother and locked her in a room
and thereafter he sprinkled kerosene oil on
the body of the deceased and set her ablaze.
He also put the fire on the thatch too. The
P.W.-3 was extensively cross-examined but
nothing adverse could be culled out in her
cross-examination which could either shake
confidence of her evidence or support the
defence. The P.W.-1 has supported the
prosecution case in his evidence. The P.W.-
4 and P.W.-5 are witnesses of Panchnama
and they confirmed the presence of the
accused at the date, time and place of the
incident but they stated that while the
deceased "Patali" was cooking food, the
'Marwi' caught fire due to wind in which
10 All. Shivnath Vs. State of U.P.
981
deceased received burn injuries and died.
The aforesaid evidence of P.W.-4 and
P.W.-5 is contrary to evidence of eye
witness
P.W.-3
and
also
does
not
corroborate with the scientific evidence i.e.
the medical evidence (post-mortem report)
inasmuch as the burn injuries found on the
body of the deceased was post-mortem
injuries and not ante-mortem injuries. The
evidence of D.W-1 Kalawati, who is wife
of the brother of the accused-appellant
Shivnath
and
D.W.-2
Rajmati
(neighbourer) are more or less on the same
line as of the evidence of P.W.-4 and P.W.-
5 which is not corroborated with the
scientific evidence i.e. post-mortem report.
Under the circumstances, the scientific
evidence i.e. post-mortem report coupled
with the evidence of eye witnesses P.W.-3
has to be given weight.

8. As per scientific evidence i.e. postmortem report, the deceased died due to
ante-mortem
injury
nos.
1
and
2
(aforequoted). Presence of the accusedappellant on the date, time and place of the
incident is totally undisputed. He could not
lead any evidence explaining the antemortem injuries received by the deceased.
The eye witness P.W-3 has proved in her
evidence that the deceased was beaten by
the accused-appellant on the date, time and
place of incident. Post-mortem report
clearly establishes the cause of death of the
deceased to be ante-mortem injuries no. 1
and 2 (aforeqoted). The burn injuries found
on the body of the deceased were
superficial and were post-mortem injuries.
This means that the deceased was set
ablaze after she died due to ante-mortem
injuries No. 1 and 2. This fact is also
corroborated with the observation made in
the post-mortem report that shoot particles
were not found in trachea. This clearly
establishes that at the time when burn
injuries were received by the deceased, she
was not alive. This totally falsifies the story
set up by the defence that the deceased died
due to burn injuries/fire accident. Under the
circumstances, the evidence of P.W-2,
P.W-4, P.W-5, D.W.-1 and D.W.-2 cannot
be
believed
as
their
evidences
are
untrustworthy.

9. Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of
judgments has held that conviction can be
based on the evidence of solitary eye
witness.

10. In the case of Vadivelu Thevar
vs. State of Madras, A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 614
(V 44 C 91 Sept.), Hon'ble Supreme Court
has held that:

"In view of these considerations,
we have no hesitation in holding that the
contention that in a murder case, the court
should insist upon plurality of witnesses, is
much too broadly stated. Section 134 of the
Indian Evidence Act, has categorically laid
it down that "no particular number of
witnesses in any case, be required for the
proof
of
any fact". The
legislature
determined,
as
long
ago
as
1872,
presumably after due consideration of the
pros and cons, that it shall not be necessary
for proof or disproof of a fact, to call any
particular
number
of
witnesses.
In
England, both before and after the passing
of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, there
have been a number of statutes as set out in
Sarkar's Law of Evidence-9th Edn., at
Pages
1100
and
1101,
forbidding
convictions on the testimony of a single
witness. The Indian Legislature has not
insisted
on
laying
down
any
such
exceptions to the general rule recognized in
Section 134 quoted above. The section
enshrines the well recognized maxim that
"Evidence has to be weighed and not
982 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
counted". Our Legislature has given
statutory recognition to the fact that
administration of justice may be hampered
if a particular number of witnesses were to
be insisted upon. It is not seldom that a
crime has been committed in the presence
of only one witness, leaving aside those
cases
which
are not
of
uncommon
occurrence, where determination of guilt
depends
entirely
on
circumstantial
evidence. If the legislature were to insist
upon plurality of witnesses, cases where the
testimony of a single witness only could be
available in proof of the crime would go
unpunished. It is here that the discretion of
the presiding judge comes into play. The
matter
thus
must
depend
upon
the
circumstances of each case and the quality
of the evidence of the single witness whose
testimony has to be either accepted or
rejected. If such a testimony is found by the
Court to be entirely reliable, there is no
legal impediment to the conviction of the
accused person on such proof. Even as the
guilt of an accused person may be proved
by the testimony of a single witness, the
innocence of an accused person may be
established on the testimony of a single
witness, even though a considerable
number of witnesses may be forthcoming to
testify to the truth of the case for the
prosecution. Hence, in our opinion, it is a
sound and well-established rule of law that
the Court is concerned with the quality and
not with the quantity of the evidence
necessary for proving or disproving a
fact."

11. It has been highlighted in Sunil
Kumar vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
(2003) 11 SCC 367 that:

"As a general rule, the Court can
and may act on his testimony of single
witness provided he is wholly reliable.
There is no legal impediment in convicting
a person on a sole testimony of single
witness. This is the logic of Section 134 of
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short "the
Evidence Act"). But, if there are doubts
about the testimony the Courts will insist
on corroboration. It is for the Courts to act
upon the testimony of witnesses. It is not
the number, the quantity, but the quality
that
is
material.
The
time-honoured
principle is that evidence has to be weighed
and not counted. On this principle stands
the edifice of Section 134 of the Evidence
Act. The test is whether the evidence has a
ring of truth, is cogent, credible and
trustworthy, or otherwise."

12. In Mahesh and Another vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh (2011) 9 SCC
626, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme
Court that:

"There
is
no
necessity
for
prosecution to multiply witnesses to prove
and establish prosecution case. There is no
requirement in law of evidence that any
particular number of witnesses is to be
examined to proved something. Evidence
has to be weighed and not to be counted."

13. In Amar Singh vs. State (NCT of
Delhi) (2020) 19 SCC 165, it has been
held:

"As a general rule, the Court can
and may act on the testimony of single eye
witness provided he is wholly reliable.
There is no legal impediment in convicting
a person on the sole testimony of a single
witness. This is the logic of Section 134 of
the Evidence Act, 1872. But if there are
doubts about the testimony, the courts will
insist on corroboration. It is not the
number, the quantity but quality that is
material. The time honoured principle is
10 All. Shivnath Vs. State of U.P.
983
that evidence has to be weighed and not
counted. On this principle stands edifice of
Section 134 of the Evidence Act. The test is
whether the evidence is having ring of truth
is cogent, credible and trustworthy or
otherwise"

14. Section 134 of the Indian
Evidence Act, has categorically laid it
down that no particular number of
witnesses in any case, be required for the
proof of any fact. The legislature has
mandated,
presumably
after
due
consideration of the pros and cons, that it
shall not be necessary for proof or disproof
of a fact, to call any particular number of
witnesses. The section enshrines the well
recognized maxim that "Evidence has to be
weighed and not counted". The Legislature
has given statutory recognition to the fact
that administration of justice may be
hampered if a particular number of
witnesses were to be insisted upon. If the
legislature were to insist upon plurality of
witnesses, cases where the testimony of a
single witness only could be available in
proof of the crime would go unpunished. If
testimony is found by the Court to be
entirely
reliable,
there
is
no
legal
impediment to the conviction of the
accused person on such proof. As the guilt
of an accused person may be proved by
the testimony of a single witness, the
innocence of an accused person may be
established on the testimony of a single
witness, even though a considerable
number of witnesses may be forthcoming
to testify to the truth of the case for the
prosecution. The Court is concerned with
the quality and not with the quantity of the
evidence
necessary
for
proving
or
disproving a fact. As a general rule, the
Court can and may act on the testimony
of single witness provided he is wholly
reliable. But, if there are doubts about
the testimony the Courts will insist on
corroboration. The Court can and may
act on the testimony of single eye witness
provided he is wholly reliable. In the
present set of facts, since the evidence of
the PW-3 is wholly reliable and also
corroborates
with
medical
evidence,
therefore, the accused has been correctly
convicted by the trial court.

15. During the course of submissions,
learned Amicus Curiae attempted to submit
that in the event scuffle took place between
the deceased and the accused-appellant and
in the scuffle the deceased received injuries
which according to the prosecution has
caused her death, then it cannot be
necessarily said that the accused-appellant
is guilty of offence under Section 302 IPC
particularly when motive and intention to
cause death was not established by the
prosecution.

16. We do not find any substance in
the aforesaid submission of learned Amicus
Curiae inasmuch as the eye witness, P.W.-3
and
the
medical
evidence
clearly
established that the cause of death of the
deceased was ante-mortem injuries no. 1
and 2 (aforequoted) and her dead body was
set ablaze after she died. The accusedappellant/defence could not lead any
evidence which may give rise to disbelieve
the medical evidence and the evidence of
eye
witness,
P.W.-3.
Therefore,
the
submission made by learned Amicus
Curiae as aforenoted, is rejected.

17. In view of the discussions made
above, we are of the firm view that the PW3 is a sterling, reliable and trustworthy
witness. She had not even shaken during
cross-examination.
The
presence
of
single/solitary eye witness within the house
cannot be doubted. The deceased died due
984 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to ante-mortem injuries caused by accusedappellant and to hide the facts and
evidences and to mislead the accusedappellant concocted a false story of fire
accident and set ablazed the dead body of
the deceased so as to give it a colour of fire
accident. Thus, we find no error in the
impugned Judgement and Order dated
16.11.2016 passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge/F.T.C. No. 1 in Session
Trial No. 454 of 2008 (State of Uttar
Pradesh vs. Shivnath) convicting the
accused-appellant under Section 302 IPC,
with life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.
10,000/- and on failure to deposit fine, to
undergo further imprisonment for another
one year.

18. For all the reasons aforenoted, we
do not find any merit in this appeal.
Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. The
appellant is languishing in jail. He shall be
kept there to serve out the sentence
awarded by the Trial Court and affirmed by
us.

19. Office is directed to communicate
this order to the court concerned and remit
the trial court record forthwith.

20. After the judgement was dictated
in open Court learned Amicus Curiae
submitted that in view of the law laid down
by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in
Criminal Appeal No. 544 of 2010 (Raggu
Baniya @ Raghwendra vs. State of U.P)
decided on 26.10.2021, direction may be
issued to the opposite party to consider the
case of the accused-appellant for remission
inasmuch as the accused-appellant is a very
poor person and has remained in prison for
more than 14 years and two months.

21. Learned AGA submits that it is
always open for the accused-appellant to
apply to the competent authority for
remission and for that purpose no specific
direction is required to be issued by this
Court. We agree with the submission of the
learned AGA and, accordingly, we leave it
open for the accused-appellant to apply for
remission in accordance with law and if
permissible in law.

----------
(2023) 10 ILRA 984
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.10.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH
KESARWANI, J.
THE HON'BLE MS. NAND PRABHA SHUKLA,
J.

Criminal Appeal No. 2704 of 1985

Satya Narain Yadava & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri A.D. Giri, Sri Azad Rai, Sri Birendra
Prasad Maurya, N/A, Sri Rama Shankar
Mishra, Sri Anurag Shukla, Sri Gopal
Chaturvedi (Sr. Adv.)

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A., Sri Bhairo Prasad Dwivedi, Sri Sanjay
Mani Tripathi, Sri Shesh Narain Mishra

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 & 201 -
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section
313 - Murder - Evidence Reliability -
Perverse Findings Criminal Appeal No. 2704
of 1985 challenging the judgment and order
dated 05.10.1985 in Sessions Trial No. 262 of
1982, convicting the appellants under Sections
148,
302/149,
and
201
IPC
with
life
imprisonment, two years' RI, and three years' RI
respectively, for the murder of Sant Prasad