# Sobran Lal v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2026) 1 ILRA 761
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-01-30
- **Case number:** Jail Appeal No. 1377 of 2012
- **Bench:** Rajesh Singh Chauhan, Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sobran-lal-v-state-of-u-p-53991
- **Pages:** 28

## Text

_Characters 0–39,976 of 94,713. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39976 for what follows._

1 All. Sobran Lal Vs. State of U.P.
761

73. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant no. 2 Suraj Pal,
appellant no. 3 Brij Lal and appellant no. 4 Jagat Pal under Section 504 IPC is set aside, while their
conviction under Sections 304 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, Sections 323 IPC read with Section
34 IPC, Sections 325 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and Section 506(2) IPC is affirmed.

74. As regards the question of sentence this Court has taken into consideration that the
occurrence relates to the year 1993, that the appeal has remained pending for more than two
decades, and that all the surviving appellants are either around or above the age of fifty years.

75. Keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case and balancing the demands
of justice with considerations of equity, this Court is of the view that the sentence imposed by the
learned Trial Court deserves to be modified. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the
appellants under the aforesaid provisions, they are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
a term of ten years each for the offence punishable under Section 304 IPC read with Section 34
IPC, with the sentences imposed for the remaining offences to run concurrently.

76. Furthermore, in order to provide adequate succour to the families of the victims, this Court
is of the view that the fine as impose by the Trial Court of Rs. 2,000/- each shall be enhanced to Rs.
20,000/- upon each surviving appellants and the aggregate of the fine i.e. Rs. 60,000/- shall be
distributed equally as a compensation to the legal heirs of Jageshwar (deceased), after due
identification and verification. In the event of the default of payment of fine, the concerned
appellant shall undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.

77. The appellants are presently on bail. They are directed to surrender before the court
concerned within 15 days from today, failing which, the appellants shall be taken into custody by
the court concerned and send to jail to serve out the sentence. The bail bonds shall stand cancelled
and sureties stand discharged.

78. Let a copy of this judgment, along with the trial court record, be transmitted forthwith to
the court concerned for information and compliance.
---------
(2026) 1 ILRA 761
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 30.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.
THE HON'BLE ABDHESH KUMAR CHAUDHARY, J.

Jail Appeal No. 1377 of 2012

Sobran Lal ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent
762 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether the appellant Sobran Lal committed the offence of "culpable homicide amounting
to murder" under S. 300 I.P.C. punishable under S. 302 I.P.C., during an attempted robbery in a public
market; whether the case falls under any of the exceptions to S. 300 I.P.C. so as to attract S. 304 I.P.C.; and
whether the sentence of imprisonment for remainder of natural life imposed by the Trial Court warrants
interference or modification. (Paras 1, 5-14, 20, 58-69, 73-75) (E-7)

Headnotes
Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 302, 307, 393 - Arms Act, 1959 - S. 3/25 -
Attempted robbery resulting in murder - Testimony of injured eye-witness - Credibility - Broad
daylight firing in busy marketplace - Evidence - Injured eyewitness - Reliability - Evidentiary
value - Related witness - Not equivalent to "interested witness" - F.I.R. - Prompt lodging - Not
required to be encyclopedic
Motive - Absence of - Effect - Ballistic / forensic evidence - Non-production - Effect
Minor contradictions - Immaterial discrepancies - S. 300 I.P.C. - Intention - Premeditation -
Sentence - Life imprisonment - Power of High Court to impose fixed-term sentence.

Held: The prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant, along with co-accused,
attempted to commit robbery and in furtherance thereof intentionally fired a gunshot causing the death of
Manoj Soni, squarely attracting S. 300 I.P.C. - P.W.-1 (Neeraj Kumar Soni) is an injured eyewitness, whose
presence at the spot is natural and whose testimony is corroborated by P.W.-3 and P.W.-4, medical evidence
and documentary exhibits - merely because P.W.-1 is the brother of the deceased, he cannot be termed an
"interested witness"; distinction between "related" and "interested" witness reiterated - absence of motive is
not fatal where the case rests on direct ocular evidence of reliable eyewitnesses; motive is not a sine qua non
for murder - minor inconsistencies regarding motorcycle number, clothes of the deceased, or non-recovery of
stolen articles do not affect the core prosecution case - non-production of ballistic or forensic evidence is not
fatal when the prosecution case is supported by consistent eyewitness testimony and prompt recovery of arms
at the spot - the act of the appellant was premeditated, the weapon was carried not merely for intimidation
but to cause death, and the case does not fall under any exception to S. 300 I.P.C. - while the conviction
under S. 302 I.P.C. is affirmed, the sentence of imprisonment for remainder of natural life imposed by the
Trial Court is unsustainable in law; the High Court, exercising constitutional powers, may impose a fixed-term
life sentence - the sentence under S. 302 I.P.C. is modified to 18 years rigorous imprisonment without
remission, while other convictions and sentences are affirmed. (Paras 50 -76)

Case Law Cited
Saudan Singh v. State of U.P., (2023) 17 SCC 446; Atul Thakur v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2018) 2
SCC 496; Arvind Sharma v. State of U.P., 2017 (3) JIC 787 (All); Kusha Laxman Waghmare v. State of
Maharashtra, (2015) 1 SCC (Cri) 100; State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rayavarpu Punnayya, AIR 1997 SC 45;
Jagroop Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1981 SC 1552; Tukaram & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 4
SCC 250; Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 355; Abdul Sayeed v. State of
Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 10 SCC 254; Md. Rojali Ali v. State of Assam, AIR 2019 SC 1128; Dalip Singh v.
State of Punjab, 1954 SCR 145; Bipin Kumar Mondal v. State of West Bengal, (2010) 12 SCC 91; Shiva
Kumar @ Shiva v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 817.

List of Acts
Indian Penal Code, 1860; Arms Act, 1959; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

List of Keywords
injured eyewitness; attempt to robbery; broad daylight; ocular evidence; minor discrepancies; absence of
motive; life imprisonment; public market.

Case Arising From
1 All. Sobran Lal Vs. State of U.P.
763
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Against the common judgment and order dated 04.08.2012 passed by the
Special/Additional Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri, in Sessions Trial No. 854 of 2008 and Sessions Trial No.
855 of 2008.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Jail Appeal in Person, Nirmal Singh Yadav, Ms. Smriti
Advs. for the Respondents:
Shri S.P. Singh, Learned A.G.A.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary, J.)

1. The present Jail Appeal has been preferred by the appellant/ accused- Sobran Lal against
the common judgment and order dated 04.08.2012 passed by the Special/Additional Sessions
Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri in (i) Sessions Trial No. 854 of 2008 arising out of Crime No. 201 of 2008
(State V/s Hari Om alias Bantu and Another), whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced
for the substantive offences under Section 302 I.P.C. for the punishment of life imprisonment along
with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and fine stipulation, under Section 307 I.P.C. for 10 years rigorous
imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and fine stipulation, under Section 393 I.P.C. for 07
years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 3,000/- and fine stipulation, and (ii) Sessions
Trial No. 855 of 2008 arising out of Crime No. 203 of 2008 (State V/s Sobran Lal), under Section
3/25 Arms Act for 03 years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and fine
stipulation. All sentences were directed to run concurrently in view of Section 427 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as to "Cr.P.C.").

CASE OF THE PROSECUTION

2. The case of the prosecution as elaborated by the learned Trial Court in the impugned
judgment is briefly encapsulated as herein under:

2.1 As per the version of the complainant- Neeraj Kumar Soni (P.W.-1), on the day of the
incident i.e. on 29.02.2008 at 5.30 PM, when he was sitting at his jewellery shop situated on
Gulauli Road, two persons riding a motorcycle attempted to rob his elder brother-Manoj Soni and
tried to snatch the bag in which his brother was carrying jewellery and cash while returning home.

2.2 On raising alarm, local residents of the neighborhood including Saur Alam (P.W.-3),
Narendra Kumar Verma (P.W.-4), Surendra Chandra Gupta, Sanjay Mishra etc. gathered at the
spot and challenged the miscreants. Thereupon, one of the miscreants took out a pistol from his
pant and fired at his elder brother- Manoj Soni with intent to kill, which hit his brother on the left
side of his body, causing a fatal gunshot injury. When the informant/complainant tried to save his
brother and intervened, the the other miscreant assaulted him with a knife several times with the
intent to kill him, causing injury to his shoulder and hands.

2.3 Somehow, with the assistance of the neighborhood, both the miscreants were apprehended
at the spot with a pistol, live cartridge, empty cartridge, and a knife along with their motorcycle
bearing number UP25U3803, chassis No. DSVBME34762.
764 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

2.4 On being questioned, one of the aforesaid miscreants told his name as Hari Om alias
Bantu, son of Shriram Sharma, resident of Nai Basti, infront of Power House, G.T Road, Kasba and
Police Station Fatehganj East and the other told his name as Sobran Lal Yadav (Appellant), son of
Omkar Yadav, resident of Saidpur Manjha, Police Station Fatehganj East, District Bareilly.

2.5 Subsequently, his injured brother- Manoj Soni was taken to the Government Hospital
at Mohammadi by the neighbours and his younger brother Pankaj Soni (P.W.-2), where he was
declared dead. The said incident became a cause of terror in the entire neighborhood of
Mohammadi, resulting in panic and closure of shops and the entire market in the locality, causing
disturbance of public order.

2.6 Based on the aforesaid written information (Exhibit-Ka-1) given by the complainant-
Neeraj Kumar Soni (P.W.-1) an F.I.R No. 62/2008 (Exhibit Ka-14) under Section 393, 302, 307
I.P.C. was lodged on 29.02.2008 at 18:15 PM relating to the said incident, against (i) Hari Om alias
Bantu and (ii) Sobran Lal Yadav. The entry regarding the aforesaid F.I.R. was also made in G.D.
(Exhibit Ka-15). The investigation for the aforesaid incident was entrusted to Inspector (Incharge)- Devi Dayal Singh (P.W.-7).

2.7 Based on the above information, the Investigating Officer, Police Station - Incharge Devi
Dayal Singh (P.W.-7) reached the spot immediately on 29th January, 2008 at 18:35 PM and found
that the nearby people were apprehending the said two miscreants.

2.8 When Inspector (In-charge) Devi Dayal Singh inquired into the incident, the complainant-
Neeraj Kumar Soni (P.W.-1), stated that the convict - Sobran Lal (Appellant) pulled out a pistol
and fired at his brother-Manoj Soni, with the intention of kill him, whereupon his brother fell down.
When the complainant attempted to reach and rescue his brother, co-accused Hari Om stabbed him
with a knife and inflicted injuries. Upon hearing the commotion, various people gathered at the
crime spot, and with their assistance, the complainant- Neeraj Kumar Soni (P.W.-1) and others
apprehended both Sobran Lal and Hari Om at the scene of occurrence along with a pistol, live
cartridges, and a knife. Complainant's brother, Manoj Soni, subsequently succumbed to the gunshot
injuries sustatined in the incident.

2.9 In the presence of witnesses- Narendra Kumar Verma (P.W.-4) and Sanjay Kumar, the
accused persons Sobran Lal and Hari Om, were arrested at the spot. From the possession of the
convict " Sobran Lal, one country-made pistol of .315 bore, one live cartridge, and one empty
cartridge, used in the incident, were recovered. From the possession of Hari Om, one country-made
pistol of .315 bore, one live cartridge, and a knife, which he picked up from the ground, were
recovered. After taking in possession the recovered articles, recovery memo (Exhibit Ka-3) was
prepared and duly sealed. Thereafter, the recovered items along with the accused persons were
brought to and lodged at the concerned police station.

2.10 On the basis of the recovery memo, a separate F.I.R. No. 64/2008 (Exhibit- Ka-20) was
registered at Police Station- Mohammadi on 29.02.2008 at 20:25 PM under Section 3/25 and 4/25
of the Arms Act against both Sobran Lal and Hari Om alias Bantu. Corresponding entries regarding
1 All. Sobran Lal Vs. State of U.P.
765
registration of Case Crimes were made in the G.D. (Exhibit Ka-21) and S.I.-Vijai Singh Solanki
(P.W.-6) was appointed as the Investigating Officer of the case.

2.11 During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer-Inspector (In-charge)- Devi
Dayal Singh (P.W.-7) prepared the "Panchnama" (Exhibit Ka-2) and other relevant papers. He
also collected samples of blood-stained soil and the plain soil from the place of occurrence and
prepared the recovery memo in respect thereof (Exhibit Ka-4). In furtherance of the investigation,
and on the pointing out of the witnesses, the Investigating Officer prepared the Site plan of the
crime-spot (Exhibit Ka-6) as well as the site-plan relating to the recovery of arms/pistol from the
crime spot (Exhibit Ka-16).

2.12 Upon completion of the investigation, and after recording the statements of several
witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and collecting various materials and documents, the police
submitted a charge-sheet before the Court concerned under Section 302, 307, 393 I.P.C (ExhibitKa-7). The charge-sheet was accompanied by the post-mortem report of deceased Manoj Soni
(Exhibit-Ka-23) and the injury report of the Informant/complainant-Neeraj Soni (Exhibit-Ka-5).
A separate charge-sheet under Sections 3/25 and 4/25 of the Arms Act (Exhibit-Ka-17) was also
filed against Sobran Lal and Hari Om in connection with the recovery of pistol from their
possession.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT

3. The Charge-Sheet named two accused persons, namely Sobran Lal (the Appellant) and Hari
Om alias Bantu. Thereafter, the case came to be committed to the Sessions Court vide order dated
01.10.2008. Charges were framed against the accused-Sobran Lal vide order dated 21.01.2009, to
which he pleaded not guilty and claimed Trial. It is pertinent to mention here that vide an order
dated 10.06.2011, due to the continuous abscondence of co-Accused-Hari Om, his Trial was
separated, and proceedings were ordered to be initiated against the said Hari Om under Section
82/83 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

4. The prosecution, in order to prove its

P.W.-1
Neeraj Kumar Soni
Complainant/brother
of
the
deceased
P.W.-2
Pankaj Soni
Eye witness
P.W.-3
Saur Alam
Eye witness
P.W.-4
Narendra Kumar Verma
Eye witness
P.W.-5
Dr. S.U.P. Sinha
Posted at the relevant point of
time at Primary Health Centre,
Mohammadi
P.W.-6
Vijai Singh
Investigating Officer
P.W.-7
Devi Dayal Singh
Investigating Officer
766 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
P.W.-8
Head Constable Sri Ram Chaudhary
Recorded the statement of the
witnesses and proved the Site
plan and Charge sheet
P.W.-9
Ramayan Singh
Proved chik report and General
Diary.
P.W.-10

P.W.-10
Dr. R.R. Agnihotri Conducted
the postmortem of the deceased
-Manoj Soni.

4.1 In addition to the oral evidence adduced by the prosecution, various documentary exhibits
were also proved by the prosecution running from Exhibit Ka-1 to Exhibit Ka-23. The Forensic
Science Laboratory report was also brought on record and forms part of the case file as Report 71-
Ka.

4.2 After the conclusion of the Prosecution Evidence, the statement of the Appellant- Sobran
Lal was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. on 25.06.2012, wherein he denied the
prosecution case in toto. He denied all the allegations, recoveries, and the testimony of the
prosecution witnesses, asserting that he and the co-accused had been falsely implicated. He further
claimed that the alleged incident has never taken place, contending that he and the other co-accused
had already been arrested three days ago, prior to the purported incident.

4.3 The appellant- Sobran Lal has not produced any defense witness in support of his defence.

4.4 Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Trial
Court returned a finding that the prosecution had successfully proved the charges beyond
reasonable doubt against the Appellant- Sobran Lal Yadav and accordingly convicted the appellant
under Sections 302, 393 and 307 I.P.C. read with Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, vide the impugned
judgment dated 04.08.2012.

4.5 On the point of sentencing, despite the plea of mitigation that the Appellant had a
dependent 70 years old widow mother, wife and four children, two being daughters, amongst them
to support, however, the Ld. Trial Court, considering the gravity of the offence committed and its
societal impact, sentenced the Appellant for life imprisonment along with fine stipulation under
Section 302 I.P.C. and Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years with fine stipulation under Section 307
I.P.C, 07 years Rigorous Imprisonment under Section 393 I.P.C along with fine stipulation, and 03
years with fine stipulation under Section 3/25 Arms Act.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THIS COURT

5. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, owing to financial constraints, the
Appellant preferred the present Jail Appeal, inter ali, on various grounds including, (i)
inconsistencies in the statement of the witnesses, (ii) defense of the Appellant that he actually
pledged his jewellery with the deceased for some money due to medical reasons, however the
deceased did not return him the jewellery inspite of receiving the money and falsely implicated him
1 All. Sobran Lal Vs. State of U.P.
767
as someone in the crowd had fired at the deceased causing his death, (iii) Appellant and the other
co-accused were beaten and severely hurt by the crowd collected at the jewellery shop, (iv) there
are inconsistencies in the statements of P.W.-1 (Neeraj Kuamr), P.W.-2 (Pankaj), P.W.-3 (Saur
Alam) and P.W.-4 (Narendra Kr. Verma) in proving the incident, (v) the impugned judgment was
not in the interest of justice.

5.1 Initially, the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant stated that the appellant has undergone
incarceration for more than 17 years and 8 months and sought bail in the light of dictum of Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Saudan Singh Vs. State of U.P., reported in (2023) 17 SCC 446.

5.2 However, keeping in view the prolonged pendency of the Appeal since 2012 and readiness
of the paper book, this Court urged both the parties to address their arguments on the merits of the
Appeal. Learned counsel for both sides agreed to address this Court on the merits of the Appeal
itself. This Court acknowledges the effort of both Ms. Smriti and Shri S.P. Singh, learned A.G.A.,
who acceded to the request of this Court and have addressed their arguments on the Appeal itself,
on short notice.

5.3 Both the parties were also granted liberty to file their respective written
argument/submissions along with the relevant case laws.

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES

6. Heard Ms. Smriti, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri S.P. Singh, learned Additional
Government Advocate (A.G.A.) for the State.

7. Learned Counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the impugned conviction is
unsustainable, as it suffers from grave factual inconsistencies, evidentiary infirmities, and failure on
the part of the prosecution to establish motive or mens rea on part of the Appellant. It was argued
that the prosecution rests upon interested witness and unreliable testimony, particularly of P.W.-1,
who is the eye-witness and the real brother of the deceased, and that the genesis of the entire
prosecution version, is inherently doubtful.

8. The next argument preferred by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the prosecution
failed to establish any motive for the alleged crime against the appellant. In the absence of proof of
motive, especially in a case based on circumstantial and interested evidence, the advantage and
benefit of doubt should accrue in favour of the appellant.

9. Drawing attention to contradictions in the prosecution case, learned counsel submitted that
although the F.I.R. mentions motorcycle No. UP25U3803 with a specific chassis number claiming
to have belonging to the accused; however, later, the prosecution lated admitted that the motorcycle
was unrelated to the accused, and even the chassis number was not visible on inspection, thereby
seriously denting the credibility of the prosecution"s case.

10. It was contended that during inquest proceedings, none of the panch witnesses attributed
any role to the appellant or stated that he had fired upon the deceased. Further discrepancies
768 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
between the statements of P.W.-1, the Doctor, and the Investigating Officer regarding the clothes
worn by the deceased reflect uncertainty, suggesting that the prosecution has failed to establish
even the basic facts.

11. Learned counsel further argued that the charge of robbery remained unproved, as no bag,
jewellery, or cash was ever recovered, exhibited or proved through witnesses. It was emphasized
that although the Doctor (P.W.-10) claimed recovery of a bullet from the body, neither the bullet
nor the relevant X-ray plate was produced before the Court. The absence of ballistic, forensic, and
scientific evidence, coupled with uncertainty as to which weapon was used, undermines the
prosecution's case. Two country-made pistols were shown to be recorded during trial, and the
police themselves could not ascertain which weapon was allegedly used for the murder of the
deceased person. Further, the injuries sustained by P.W.-1 were opined by the doctor to be simple
and possibly self-inflicted. The Forensic Report on blood-stained soil was inconclusive, and even
the Site plan failed to depict the position of the witnesses and accused.

12. Learned Counsel for the appellant further vehemently submitted that the appellant, in his
statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., alleged illegal detention for three days prior to the incident,
raising serious doubts on the fairness of investigation. On merits, it has been argued that the
essential ingredients of Section 302 I.P.C. are not made out, as the prosecution has failed to
establish any motive or mens rea.

13. In the alternative, it was contended by the leaned Counsel that even if the prosecution"s
case is accepted, the incident occurred in a sudden situation without premeditation, and, a single
shot was fired out of fear due to a gathering of crowd. The case, at best, would attract Section 304
Part I or II I.P.C. Reliance has been placed on the judgments of the Hon"ble Supreme Court in Atul
Thakur v. State of Himachal Pradesh, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 496; wherein similar circumstances
warranted conversion of conviction from Section 302 to Section 304. Furthermore, reliance has
been placed upon several Supreme Court"s judgments i.e. Arvind Sharma Vs State of U.P.,
reported in 2017 (3) JIC 787 All; Kusha Laxman Waghmare Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in
(2015) 1 SCC (Cri) 100; State of Andhra Pradesh Vs Rayavarpu Punnayya reported in AIR 1997
SC 45; Jagroop Singh V/s State of Haryana, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1552; and Tukaram &
Others V/s State of Maharashtra, reported in (2011)4 SCC 250; to support her contention of
converting the conviction from 302 to 304 I.P.C. Reliance has also been placed upon the judgment
of this Court, in the case of Rahul vs. State of U.P., reported in Neutral Citation No.- 2023:AHCLKO;69130-DB; on the similar issue.

14. Lastly, it has been argued that since the prosecution having failed to prove the charges
beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt, which ought to
result in acquittal of the appellant; in the alternative, the conviction deserves modification to a
lesser offence under Section 304 of the I.P.C.

15. Per contra, Shri S.P. Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate (A.G.A.) appearing
for the State, supported the impugned judgment and opposed the contentions advanced by learned
Counsel for the appellant. He contended that the impugned judgment reflects a proper, careful, and
meticulous appreciation of the entire prosecution evidence. It was submitted that the Trial Court
1 All. Sobran Lal Vs. State of U.P.
769
correctly evaluated the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, including their crossexaminations, as well as the investigative material on record, before recording the appellant"s
conviction. It has been further submitted that the Trial Court duly considered the appellant"s
statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the defence version in their correct perspective. According
to the learned A.G.A., the impugned judgment is founded on sound and cogent reasoning, wherein
the appellant"s presence at the spot, along with co-accused, stands conclusively established, and the
appellant intentionally fired upon the deceased fully satisfies the ingredients of Section 300 of the
I.P.C.

16. Learned Counsel for the State further contended that the act of the appellant does not fall
within any of the exceptions to Section 300 I.P.C. It was submitted that the murder was committed
in broad daylight in a public market after the appellant failed in his attempt to snatch a bag
containing jewellery and cash. The act was deliberate, pre-planned, and wholly unconnected with
any claim of self-defense or sudden provocation. It was further urged that the appellant is a habitual
offender with acriminal antecedent, having been convicted in Case Crime No. 426/2008 under
Section 2/3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (prevention) Act, 1986 and
Case Crime No. 629 of 2007 under Sections 2/3 of the U.P. Gangster Act. His criminal history
justifies the Trial Court"s observation regarding his dangerous propensity.

17. Learned A.G.A. has further contended that the Trial Court has also rightly observed that
the killing of a jeweller in a crowded marketplace created an atmosphere of fear and insecurity
among the business community. It was submitted that showing any undue leniency to such an
offender would adversely undermine public confidence in the justice system. With regard to the
sentence imposed, it was urged that although the Trial Court refrained from awarding the death
penalty, it correctly sentenced the appellant to imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life,
considering the gravity of the offence and its profound societal impact. The Jail Superintendent"s
letter dated 05.10.2025 was also relied upon to submit that the benefit of remission is not applicable
in such cases.

18. The learned A.G.A. has heavily placed his reliance on the principles laid down by the
Hon"ble Supreme Court in the case of Shiva Kumar @ Shiva @ Shivamurthy v. State of
Karnataka, reported in (2023) 9 SCC 817; wherein the Apex Court reaffirmed that the
Constitutional Courts are empowered to impose a sentence of life imprisonment for a fixed term
such as fourteen, thirty or more years, in cases involving heinous offences, particularly where
undue leniency would erode public confidence in the justice system.

19. Lastly, learned A.G.A. has submitted that the findings of guilt recorded by the Trial Court are
well-supported by cogent and reliable evidence, that the sentence imposed is lawful, justified, and
proportionate, and that the present appeal therefore deserves to be dismissed, with the judgment of
conviction and sentence passed by the Learned Trial Court being affirmed and upheld.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

20. This Court has heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and has carefully
perused the entire material on record.
770 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

21. As per the F.I.R., the incident occurred at about 5:30 PM and the F.I.R. came to be lodged
at about 6:25 PM on the same day i.e 29.02.2008. As per the version of the said F.I.R., the offence
of murder was committed by fire-arms during attempted robbery by snatching of a bag containing
jewellery and cash from the deceased by one of the assailant"s and when the informant went to
save the deceased, he was also attacked by knife, causing him injury by another assailant.

22. P.W.-1(Neeraj Kumar Soni), the informant and injured eyewitness, supporting the
prosecution case has stated that on 29.02.2008 at about 5:30 PM, he was sitting in his jewellery
shop. Since, it was time for closing the shop, his elder brother- Manoj Soni was leaving for home
with jewellery and cash in his bag, when two motorcycle borne assailants, attempted to snatch the
said bag. He and his elder brother-Manoj started shouting, wherein persons from the neighborhood
namely Narendra Verma, Suresh Gupta etc. immediately reached and challenged the assailants. On
being challenged, one assailant fired upon Manoj Soni causing a fatal injury, hitting him on the left
side of his back, due to which he fell on the floor. Thereafter, the informant tried to save his elder
brother, however, he was also attacked by the other assailant with a knife with intention to kill.
Manoj Soni was immediately taken to the Mohammadi Hospital, wherein he was declared dead.
The people present at the crime-spot apprehended both the assailants along with firearms and knife,
wherein one of the assailants disclosed his name as Sobran Lal and another Hari Om alias Bantu.
One .315 bore pistol and one blank cartridge was recovered from Sobran Lal and one Knife and
.315 bore pistol and one cartridge stuck in the barrel was recovered from Hari Om. The said P.W.-1
has also stated he had the complaint written by one Gaurav Pathak and lodged the same with the
police station and got the Motorcycle recovered to the police from the crime-spot. The said witness
has proved the Tahrir as "Exhibit-Ka-1".

23. The ocular version of P.W.-1 (Neeraj Kumar Soni) is corroborated by P.W.-2 (Pankaj
Soni), P.W.-3 (Saur Alam) and P.W.-4 (Narender Kumar Verma), who are independent
shopkeepers from the neighbourhood and witnessed the occurrence.

24. P.W.-5 (Dr. S.U.P Sinha) medically examined P.W.-1 and proved the injury report
"Exhibit-Ka-5" has stated in his examination-in-chief that he was posted at Primary Health Center,
Mohmmaddi on 01.03.2008 and has examined the injured " Neeraj Kumar Soni and found the
following injury on his body:

"(1) I/w of size 1 cm x 0.4 cm x muscle deep on (Lt) shoulder region, 3 cm medial to (Lt)
Acromion process, margins are clean cut, bright scab present.

(2) I/w of size 3 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep on dorsum of (Lt) hand, 6 cm below the (Lt)
writs joint, margins are clean cut, bright scab present.

Opinion- The above injuries (1) and (2) are simple in nature and are caused by some
sharp-edged object. Duration is about 12 hours to 24 hours old."

25. P.W.-6 (S.I. Vijay Singh) has proved the Panchnama as "Exhibit-Ka-2" and other
contemporaneous police papers prepared immediately after the incident and deposed that Manoj
Soni (deceased) was killed around 5:30 PM in the evening on 29.02.2008. After lodging of the
1 All. Sobran Lal Vs. State of U.P.
771
F.I.R., he along with the S.H.O.- Devi Dayal Singh and other police officer reached the crime-spot,
where there was huge crowd. On the instructions of Devi Dayal Singh he prepared the Panchama
and other police papers.

26. P.W.-7 (Devi Dayal Singh) is the Investigating Officer of the case and he has deposed that
on the Tehrir of P.W.-1(Neeraj Soni) a crime case under Section 302, 393, 307 I.P.C. was
registered against the accused Sobran Lal and Hari Om alias Bantu and he went to the crime-spot
and recorded the statement of P.W.-1 and got the panchnama prepared of the deceased. He got the
site-plan made on the pointing out of the informant/P.W.-1 and prepared other police documents.
He proved the Panchnama (Exhibit-Ka-2), Site-Plan (Exhibit- Ka-6), Recovery memo of the blood
stained and plain earth from the crime-spot (Exhibit Ka-4), Recovery of fire-arms 315 bore Pistol,
khoka cartridge, live cartridge, 315 bore pistol (Exhibit Ka-3), Charge-sheet (Exhibit-Ka-7),One
live cartridge, one empty cartridge, pistol and knife, (Exhibit-1 to 6). Photos, sample seal, police
forms 13 and 33, Letter CMO and R.I. (Exhibit Ka-8) and (Exhibit Ka-13), chik F.I.R. (Exhibit Ka14) and G.D. (Exhibit Ka-15).

27. P.W.-8, H.C. SriRam Chaudhary, presented on behalf of the prosecution, has testified that
the investigation of Case No. 64/2008 dated 29.02.2008 was handed over by Sub-Inspector P.K.
Srivastava on 01.03.2008. Thereafter, this witness took over the investigation and recorded the
statements of the witnesses. Prepared the map. The witness has proved the map Exhibit Ka-16,
charge sheet Exhibit Ka-17, Exhibit Ka-18, Exhibit Ka-19.

28. P.W.-9, Ramayan Singh, presented on behalf of the prosecution, in his sworn statement,
has proved Chik F.I.R. No. 64/2008 (Exhibit Ka-20) to be in his own writing and signature and
photocopy of G.D. (Exhibit Ka-21) as secondary witness and prosecution recommendation (Exhibit
Ka-22) has also been proved by the said witness.

29. The proximate time of death, as opined by the doctor (P.W.-10/ Dr. R.R. Agnihotri), was
approximately half a day prior to the conduct of the post mortem examination. The inquest
proceedings were conducted on 29.02.2008 and commenced at about 18:15 PM. In the relevant
column of the inquest report describing the cause of death, it was recorded that the deceased had
died due to fire-arm injury sustained by him. Upon completion of the inquest, at about 18:30 PM,
the body was sent for post-mortem examination to ascertain the exact cause of death.

30. As per the Doctor, examined as P.W.-10, the post-mortem report was prepared in his own
handwriting and bears his signature; the same was proved and marked as "Exhibit-Ka-23". In the
examination-in-chief, while describing the injuries sustained by the deceased, P.W.-10 opined that
the cause of death was "due to shock & hemorrhage as a result of ante mortem firearms injuries".
In his cross-examination, he stated that the death might has occurred approximately half a day prior
to the post-mortem examination, which was conducted at 6:30 AM in the morning of 01.03.2008.
He also confirmed that the death of the deceased might have occurred around 5:30 PM on the
previous evening. He also stated that the bullet recovered from the deceased was not presently in
his possession. He further deposed that there was no requirement of writing in the X-Report that the
bullet was searched in the body of the deceased after conducting his X-Ray, nor was it necessary to
exhibit that X-Ray plate.
772 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

31. This Court finds that among the witnesses of fact, P.W.-1 (Neeraj Kumar Soni), who is the
real brother of the deceased, is an eyewitness to the incident. He is also an injured witness, having
sustained injuries in the same occurrence. His injury report is exhibited Ka-5 and stands duly
proved by P.W.-5 (Dr. S.U.P. Sinha). Further, P.W.-1 is also the informant of the case and has
explained that, owing to the injured sustained by him, the written complaint was scribed by one
Gaurav Pathak at his instance. In his cross-examination, his testimony remained consistent and
unshaken. Although an attempt was made to raise doubt relating to the factum of jewellery and
money in the bag allegedly sought to be snatched by the convict from the deceased, however this
Court finds such doubt to be immaterial, as the prosecution is required to establish not the incident
of robbery but an attempt to robbery and death of the deceased-Manoj Soni. In any case, P.W.-2
(Pankaj Soni) in his cross-examination has very well explained that it was he who had lifted the bag
containing the jewellery and cash from the crime-spot and took back home and subsequently, when
the Investigating Officer sought for the said bag, jewellery and cash, he produced the same, which
was thereafter released to him on Superdari.

32. Further, this Court cannot be oblivious to the law that the testimony of the injured witness
generally carries significant evidentiary weight and is ordinarily entitled to a higher degree of
credence, unless the deposition suffers from substantial discrepancies or contradiction. Upon a
careful reading of the testimony of P.W.-1, this Court does not find any such such material
discrepancy. Therefore, the suspicion sought to be raised by the appellant regarding the genesis of
the prosecution case is wholly unfounded. The Supreme Court in the case of Balu Sudam Khalde
& Anr. V/s State of Maharashtra, reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 355; has substantially
delineated the treatment ought to be meted to the testimony by an injured eye-witness in the
following words:

"26. When the evidence of an injured eye-witness is to be appreciated, the under-noted
legal principles enunciated by the Courts are required to be kept in mind:

(a) The presence of an injured eye-witness at the time and place of the occurrence cannot
be doubted unless there are material contradictions in his deposition.

(b) Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be believed that an injured
witness would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused.

(c) The evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling
reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly.

(d) The evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted on account of some embellishment
in natural conduct or minor contradictions.

(e) If there be any exaggeration or immaterial embellishments in the evidence of an
injured witness, then such contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment should be discarded from
the evidence of injured, but not the whole evidence.
1 All. Sobran Lal Vs. State of U.P.
773

(f) The broad substratum of the prosecution version must be taken into consideration and
discrepancies which normally creep due to loss of memory with passage of time should be
discarded."

33. Further, the testimony of an injured eye witness is kept on a higher pedestal and is
accorded a special status in law as injury itself guarantees presence and truthfulness, as held by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in"Abdul Sayeed vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2010) 10 SCC
254; reproduced as follows:

"The law on the point can be summarized to the effect that the testimony of the injured
witness is accorded a special status in law. This is as a consequence of the fact that the injury to
the witness is an in-built guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and because the
witness will not want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to falsely implicate a third
party for the commission of the offence.