# State of U.P v. Krishnadeo @ Jhala & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 1 ILRA 96
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-12-23
- **Case number:** Government Appeal No. 2099 of 1984
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Ajai Tyagi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-v-krishnadeo-jhala-ors-49177
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973-Section 378 - Indian Penal
Code, 1860-Section 302-Challenge to -
acquittal-false implication- presence of
surviving accused is found doubtful-As per
postmortem report, there is no injury of
bomb and lathi but several wounds of
pellets of gunshot is found-Trial Court
rightly appreciated the evidence-It is well
settled that the Appellate Court hearing
the appeal filed against the judgment and
1 All. State of U.P. Vs. Krishnadeo @ Jhala & Ors.
97
order of acquittal will not overrule or
otherwise
disturb
the
Trial
Court's
acquittal if the Appellate Court does not
find substantial and compelling reasons
for doing so.(Para 1 to 28)

B. It is settled principles of law that if two
views of possible, one favoring to the
prosecution and other favoring to the
accused, the view favoring to the accused
should
be
adopted.
The
paramount
consideration of the court is to ensure that
miscarriage of justice is prevented. A
miscarriage of justice which may arise
from acquittal of the guilty is no less than
from the conviction of an innocent.(Para
19)

The appeal is dismissed. (E-6)

List of cases cited:

## Text

96 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
rightly been held by the trial court. It is also
noticeable that as per prosecution case
DBBL gun was recovered from the
possession of accused Kashmir Singh on
23.06.1982.
The
recovered
gun
and
cartridges were brought from police station
Kitcha to police station Baheri, District
Bareilly by Constable Prem Pal Sharma as
late on 24.01.1983 and there was no
explanation for such lapse. Thereafter the
same was sent from the police Station
Baheri to ballistic expert, Lucknow as late
on 03.04.1983. This is a clear lacuna on the
part of the Investigating Agency though by
itself may not be a ground of acquittal,
however, coupled with the fact that PW-12
in his examination in chief has admitted that
the cloth in which the recovered gun was
packed was torn therefore, he has changed
the same and resealed the aforesaid articles
and thereafter handed over to the Constable
Prem Pal. This creates doubt in the
prosecution story connecting the weapon
recovered with the crime. Therefore, the
prosecution case is full of contradictions and
lapses on part of the prosecution. There has
also been lapse on the part of investigating
agency in preparation of site plan as well as
explanation offered for non production of
the eye witnesses mentioned in the first
information report. The explanation that eye
witness Nishan Singh had left the place
immediately after the incident and had gone
to Punjab and his whereabouts are not
known is not convincing at all. PW-2-Dayal
Singh and Nishan Singh are closely related
and are first degree relation, therefore, the
explanation for their non production is not
satisfactory. Other eye witness Jogendra
Singh, explanation for non production given
was that he fell seriously ill, however, no
medical documents were produced in
respect of such serious illness, which may
suggest that he was not in position to appear
in the witness box.

38. In the totality of circumstances,
we find that prosecution has failed to prove
its story beyond doubt.

39. It is the settled law that after
acquittal by the trial court there is a double
presumption of innocence in favour of the
accused which, in our opinion, cannot be
overlooked in the present case.

40.

Accordingly,
the
present
government appeal stands dismissed.
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 96
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.12.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE AJAI TYAGI, J.

Government Appeal No. 2099 of 1984

State of U.P. ...Appellant
Versus
Krishnadeo @ Jhala & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
A.G.A.

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri H.N. Singh, Sri N.N. Singh, Sri Satya
Prakash Shukla, Sri Udai Prakash Deo
Pandey, Sri V.B. Singh

A. Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973-Section 378 - Indian Penal
Code, 1860-Section 302-Challenge to -
acquittal-false implication- presence of
surviving accused is found doubtful-As per
postmortem report, there is no injury of
bomb and lathi but several wounds of
pellets of gunshot is found-Trial Court
rightly appreciated the evidence-It is well
settled that the Appellate Court hearing
the appeal filed against the judgment and
1 All. State of U.P. Vs. Krishnadeo @ Jhala & Ors.
97
order of acquittal will not overrule or
otherwise
disturb
the
Trial
Court's
acquittal if the Appellate Court does not
find substantial and compelling reasons
for doing so.(Para 1 to 28)

B. It is settled principles of law that if two
views of possible, one favoring to the
prosecution and other favoring to the
accused, the view favoring to the accused
should
be
adopted.
The
paramount
consideration of the court is to ensure that
miscarriage of justice is prevented. A
miscarriage of justice which may arise
from acquittal of the guilty is no less than
from the conviction of an innocent.(Para
19)

The appeal is dismissed. (E-6)

List of cases cited:

1. M.S. Narayan Menon @ Mani Vs St. of Ker. &
anr. (2006) 6 SCC 39

2. Chandrappa Vs St. of Karn. (2007) 4 SCC
415

3. St. of Goa Vs Sanjay Thakran & anr. (2007)
3 SCC 75

4. St. of U.P. Vs Ram Veer Singh & ors. (2007)
AIR SCW 5553 Girja Prasad (dead) by LRs Vs St.
of MP (2007) AIR SCW 5589

5. Luna Ram Vs Bhupat Singh & ors. (2009) SCC
749

6. Mookkiah & anr. Vs St., Rep. by the Insp. of
T.N. (2013) AIR SC 321

7. St. of Karn. Vs HemaReddy (1981) AIR SC
1417

8. Shivasharanappa & ors. Vs St. of Karn.
(2013) 7 JT SC 66

9. St. of Punj. Vs Madan Mohan Lal Verma
(2013) 14 SCC 153

10. Jayaswamy Vs St. of Karn. (2018) 7 SCC
219

11. Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan Vs St. of Guj.
(2020) 14 SC 750

12. Samsul Haque Vs St. of Assam (2019) 18
SCC 161

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Patanjali Shukla, learned
A.G.A. for the State and Sri Satya Prakash
Shukla, learned counsel for respondents
perused the record.

2. This appeal under Section 378 of
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,
1973
(hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.'), at the
behest of the State, has been preferred
against the judgment and order dated
28.4.1984 passed by Sessions Judge,
Mirzapur acquitting accused-respondents
who have been tried for commission of
offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC')
read with Section149 in Sessions Trial
No.66 of 1983.

3. Brief facts as culled out from the
record are that the evidence of Ramakant (
PW-1) brother of the deceased, is that while
his brother, Nageshwar Chaubey, was
coming from Semariya to Charkonava and
had
reached
near
the
road
culvert,
Krishnadeo alias Jhala, accused, who was
lying in ambush alongwith other accused
on the northern side of the road, fired a shot
on Nageshwar Chaubey, which struck him
(Nageshwar Chaubey) in his leg. Rama
Kant, Vishwanath, Baggar, Ram Subhag,
Ram Prasad and Alagudeo alias Raj Narain
were accompanying Nageshwar Chaubey at
that time, having lathis in their hands. They
started running towards west and stationed
themselves after crossing the road culvert.
As Nageshwar Chaubey had suffered gun
shot injury in his leg, he could not run fast.
98 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Krishna Deo, Kailash Deo, Harish Chandra
Deo and Bachchan, accused, were seen
chasing Nageshwar Chaubey firing shots
from their guns. The other accused were
also giving a chase to Nageshwar Chaubey,
who fell down at a distance of about 80
paces from the culvert towards west as a
result of the injuries suffered by him.
Thereupon, Dukhran accused, hit him with
gandasi a sharp cutting weapon, and
Budhiram, accused, took out a hand bomb
from his jhola and hurled it towards the
persons, who had moved ahead and had
kept themselves cancelled in the forest. The
bomb exploded and produced a loud sound
and smoke. Budhiram, accused, then took
the rifle of the deceased and thereafter, all
the accused fled away in the jungle. Ram
Kant and others then came to the place
where Nageshwar was lying in pool of
blood. It was found that the life had ebbed
out as a result of the injuries caused on his
person. Long standing enmity is said to be
the motive for ending the life of Nageshwar
Chaubey .

4. On F.I.R. the investigation was
moved into motion. Investigation Officer
took up the investigation, visited the spot
and prepared the site plan. Investigation
Officer collected the blood stained and
plain earth from the place of occurrence
and live as well as empty cartridge were
also
recovered.
Search
memos
were
prepared. The body of the deceased was
sent for postmortem where the postmortem
was conducted and the postmortem report
was prepared by Doctor.

5.

After
the
completion
of
investigation, charge sheet was submitted
by the Investigation Officer. The case being
exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions
was committed to the Court of Sessions.
The learned Trial Court framed charges
under Sections 302, 148, 149 and 379 of
IPC. The accused persons denied the
charges and claimed to be tried.

6.

Prosecution
examined
oral
witnesses and filed doucmentary evidence.
After prosecution evidence, statement of
accused persons were recorded under
Section 313 Cr.P.C., accused examined one
witness in their defence.

7. Learned A.G.A. has submitted that
the learned Judge below has misread the
evidence and that the judgment is based on
surmises and conjectures. It is further
submitted by learned A.G.A. that First
Information Report offence under Section
302 read with Section 149 of I.P.C. was
committed and that the judgment of the
court below is erroneous..

8. Before we embark on testimony
and the judgment of the Court below, the
contours
for
interfering
in
Criminal
Appeals where accused has been held to be
non guilty would require to be discussed.

9. The principles which would govern
and regulate the hearing of an appeal by
this Court, against an order of acquittal
passed by the trial Court, have been very
succinctly explained by the Apex Court in
catena of decisions. In the case of "M.S.
NARAYANA MENON @ MANI VS.
STATE OF KERALA & ANR", (2006) 6
S.C.C. 39, the Apex Court has narrated the
powers of the High Court in appeal against
the order of acquittal. In para 54 of the
decision, the Apex Court has observed as
under:

"54. In any event the High Court
entertained an appeal treating to be an
appeal against acquittal, it was in fact
exercising the revisional jurisdiction. Even
1 All. State of U.P. Vs. Krishnadeo @ Jhala & Ors.
99
while exercising an appellate power
against a judgment of acquittal, the High
Court should have borne in mind the well
settled principles of law that where two
view are possible, the appellate Court
should not interfere with the finding of
acquittal recorded by the Court below."

10.

Further,
in
the
case
of
"CHANDRAPPA
Vs.
STATE
OF
KARNATAKA", reported in (2007) 4
S.C.C. 415, the Apex Court laid down the
following principles;

"42. From the above decisions, in
our considered view, the following general
principles regarding powers of the appellate
Court while dealing with an appeal against
an order of acquittal emerge:

[1] An appellate Court has full
power
to
review,
re-appreciate
and
reconsider the evidence upon which the order
of acquittal is founded.

2]
The
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,
1973
puts
no
limitation,
restriction or condition on exercise of such
power and an appellate Court on the
evidence before it may reach its own
conclusion, both on questions of fact and of
law.

[3] Various expressions, such
as,"substantial and compelling reasons",
"good and sufficient grounds", "very strong
circumstances",
"distorted
conclusions",
"glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to
curtain extensive powers of an appellate
Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such
phraseologies are more in the nature of
"flourishes of language" to emphasis the
reluctance of an appellate Court to interfere
with acquittal than to curtail the power of the
Court to review the evidence and to come to
its own conclusion.

[4] An appellate Court, however,
must bear in mind that in case of acquittal
there is double presumption in favour of the
accused.
Firstly,
the
presumption
of
innocence is available to him under the
fundamental
principle
of
criminal
jurisprudence that every person shall be
presumed to be innocent unless he is
proved guilty by a competent Court of law.
Secondly, the accused having secured his
acquittal, the presumption of his innocence
is further reinforced, reaffirmed and
strengthened by the trial Court.

[5] If two reasonable conclusions
are possible on the basis of the evidence on
record, the appellate Court should not
disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by
the trial Court."

11. Thus, it is a settled principle that
while exercising appellate powers, even if
two
reasonable
views/conclusions
are
possible on the basis of the evidence on
record, the appellate Court should not
disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by
the trial Court.

12. Even in the case of STATE OF
GOA Vs. SANJAY THAKRAN & ANR
reported in (2007) 3 S.C.C. 75, the Apex
Court has reiterated the powers of the High
Court in such cases. In para 16 of the said
decision, the Court has observed as under:

"16.
From
the
aforesaid
decisions, it is apparent that while
exercising the powers in appeal against the
order of acquittal the Court of appeal
would not ordinarily interfere with the
order of acquittal unless the approach of
the lower Court is vitiated by some
manifest illegality and the conclusion
arrived at would not be arrived at by any
reasonable person and, therefore, the
decision is to be characterized as perverse.
Merely because two views are possible, the
Court of appeal would not take the view
100 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
which would upset the judgment delivered
by the Court below. However, the appellate
Court has a power to review the evidence if
it is of the view that the conclusion arrived
at by the Court below is perverse and the
Court has committed a manifest error of
law and ignored the material evidence on
record. A duty is cast upon the appellate
Court, in such circumstances, to reappreciate the evidence to arrive to a just
decision on the basis of material placed on
record to find out whether any of the
accused is connected with the commission
of the crime he is charged with."

13. Similar principle has been laid
down by the Apex Court in cases of
"STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS.
RAM VEER SINGH & ORS.", 2007
A.I.R. S.C.W. 5553 and in "GIRJA
PRASAD (DEAD) BY L.R.s VS. STATE
OF MP", 2007 A.I.R. S.C.W. 5589. Thus,
the powers, which this Court may exercise
against an order of acquittal, are well
settled.

14. In the case of "LUNA RAM VS.
BHUPAT SINGH AND ORS.", reported
in (2009) SCC 749, the Apex Court in para
10 and 11 has held as under:

"10. The High Court has noted
that the prosecution version was not clearly
believable. Some of the so called eye
witnesses stated that the deceased died
because his ankle was twisted by an
accused.
Others
said
that
he
was
strangulated. It was the case of the
prosecution that the injured witnesses were
thrown out of the bus. The doctor who
conducted the postmortem and examined
the witnesses had categorically stated that
it was not possible that somebody would
throw a person out of the bus when it was
in running condition.

11. Considering the parameters
of appeal against the judgment of acquittal,
we are not inclined to interfere in this
appeal. The view of the High Court cannot
be termed to be perverse and is a possible
view on the evidence."

15. Even in a recent decision of the
Apex Court in the case of "MOOKKIAH
AND ANR. VS. STATE, REP. BY THE
INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL
NADU", reported in AIR 2013 SC 321, the
Apex Court in para 4 has held as under:

"4. It is not in dispute that the
trial Court, on appreciation of oral and
documentary evidence led in by the
prosecution and defence, acquitted the
accused in respect of the charges leveled
against them. On appeal by the State, the
High Court, by impugned order, reversed
the said decision and convicted the accused
under Section 302 read with Section 34 of
IPC and awarded RI for life. Since counsel
for the appellants very much emphasized
that the High Court has exceeded its
jurisdiction in upsetting the order of
acquittal into conviction, let us analyze the
scope and power of the High Court in an
appeal filed against the order of acquittal.
This Court in a series of decisions has
repeatedly laid down that as the first
appellate court the High Court, even while
dealing with an appeal against acquittal,
was also entitled, and obliged as well, to
scan through and if need be reappreciate
the entire evidence, though while hoosing
to interfere only the court should find an
absolute assurance of the guilt on the basis
of the evidence on record and not merely
because the High Court could take one
more possible or a different view only.
Except the above, where the matter of the
extent and depth of consideration of the
appeal is concerned, no distinctions or
1 All. State of U.P. Vs. Krishnadeo @ Jhala & Ors.
101
differences in approach are envisaged in
dealing with an appeal as such merely
because one was against conviction or the
other against an acquittal. [Vide State of
Rajasthan vs. Sohan Lal and Others,
(2004) 5 SCC 573]"

16. It is also a settled legal position
that in acquittal appeals, the appellate Court
is not required to rewrite the judgment or to
give fresh reasonings, when the reasons
assigned by the Court below are found to
be just and proper. Such principle is laid
down by the Apex Court in the case of
"STATE
OF
KARNATAKA
VS.
HEMAREDDY", AIR 1981, SC 1417,
wherein it is held as under:

"...This Court has observed in
Girija Nandini Devi V. Bigendra Nandini
Choudhary (1967) 1 SCR 93:(AIR 1967 SC
1124) that it is not the duty of the Appellate
Court on the evidence to repeat the
narration of the evidence or to reiterate the
reasons given by the trial Court expression
of general agreement with the reasons
given by the Court the decision of which is
under appeal, will ordinarily suffice."

17. In a recent decision, the Hon'ble
Apex Court in "SHIVASHARANAPPA &
ORS. VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA",
JT 2013 (7) SC 66 has held as under:

"That
appellate
Court
is
empowered to reappreciate the entire
evidence, though, certain other principles
are also to be adhered to and it has to be
kept in mind that acquittal results into
double presumption of innocence."

18. Further, in the case of "STATE
OF PUNJAB VS. MADAN MOHAN
LAL VERMA", (2013) 14 SCC 153, the
Apex Court has held as under:

"The law on the issue is well
settled that demand of illegal gratification
is sine qua non for constituting an offence
under the 1988 Act. Mere recovery of
tainted money is not sufficient to convict
the accused when substantive evidence in
the case is not reliable, unless there is
evidence to prove payment of bribe or to
show that the money was taken voluntarily
as a bribe. Mere receipt of the amount by
the accused is not sufficient to fasten guilt,
in the absence of any evidence with regard
to demand and acceptance of the amount as
illegal gratification. Hence, the burden
rests on the accused to displace the
statutory presumption raised under Section
20 of the 1988 Act, by bringing on record
evidence, either direct or circumstantial, to
establish with reasonable probability, that
the money was accepted by him, other than
as a motive or reward as referred to in
Section 7 of the 1988 Act. While invoking
the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, the
court
is
required
to
consider
the
explanation offered by the accused, if any,
only on the touchstone of preponderance of
probability and not on the touchstone of
proof
beyond
all
reasonable
doubt.
However, before the accused is called upon
to explain how the amount in question was
found in his possession, the foundational
facts
must
be
established
by
the
prosecution.
The
complainant
is
an
interested and partisan witness concerned
with the success of the trap and his
evidence must be tested in the same way as
that of any other interested witness. In a
proper case, the court may look for
independent
corroboration
before
convincing the accused person."

19. The Apex Court recently in
Jayaswamy vs. State of Karnataka, (2018)
7 SCC 219, has laid down the principles for
laying down the powers of appellate court
102 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
in re-appreciating the evidence in a case
where the State has preferred an appeal
against acquittal, which read as follows:

"10.It is by now well settled that
the Appellate Court hearing the appeal
filed against the judgment and order of
acquittal will not overrule or otherwise
disturb the Trial Court's acquittal if the
Appellate Court does not find substantial
and compelling reasons for doing so. If the
Trial Court's conclusion with regard to the
facts is palpably wrong; if the Trial Court's
decision was based on erroneous view of
law; if the Trial Court's judgment is likely
to result in grave miscarriage of justice; if
the entire approach of the Trial Court in
dealing with the evidence was patently
illegal; if the Trial Court judgment was
manifestly unjust and unreasonable; and if
the Trial Court has ignored the evidence or
misread the material evidence or has
ignored material documents like dying
declaration/report of the ballistic expert
etc. the same may be construed as
substantial and compelling reasons and the
first appellate court may interfere in the
order of acquittl. However, if the view taken
by the Trial Court while acquitting the
accused is one of the possible views under
the facts and circumstances of the case, the
Appellate Court generally will not interfere
with the order of acquittal particularly in
the absence of the aforementioned factors.

.........................It is relevant to note
the observations of this Court in the case of
Ramanand Yadav vs. Prabhu Nath Jha & Ors.,
(2003) 12 SCC 606, which reads thus:

"21.There is no embargo on the
appellate court reviewing the evidence upon
which an order of acquittal is based. Generally,
the order of acquittal shall not be interfered
with because the presumption of innocence of
the accused is further strengthened by acquittal.
The golden thread which runs through the web
of administration of justice in criminal cases is
that if two views are possible on the evidence
adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of
the accused and the other to his innocence, the
view which is favourable to the accused should
be adopted. The paramount consideration of
the court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice
is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which
may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less
than from the conviction of an innocent. In a
case where admissible evidence is ignored, a
duty is cast upon the appellate court to reappreciate the evidence in a case where the
accused has been acquitted, for the purpose of
ascertaining as to whether any of the accused
committed any offence or not."

20. The Apex Court recently in
Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan v. State of Gujarat,
(2020) 14 SC 750, has held that the appellate
court is reversing the trial court's order of
acquittal, it should give proper weight and
consideration to the presumption of innocence
in favour of accused, and to the principle that
such a presumption sands reinforced, reaffirmed
and strengthened by the trial court and in
Samsul Haque v. State of Assam, (2019) 18
SCC 161 held that judgment of acquittal, where
two views are possible, should not be set aside,
even if view formed by appellate court may be
a more probable one, interference

21. At present, it is submitted by learned
AGA that in all, there were eight accused
persons. In this case and now out of them, six
accused persons have died. Hence, now this
appeal survives only with regard to two
surviving accused persons, namely, Budhiram
and Kamla Lohar. So, we are concerned only
with regard to the matter of accused-Budhiram
and Kamla Lohar.

22. It is further submitted by learned
AGA that on 10.10.1982 at 12:00 noon, all the
eight accused persons came on the spot and
1 All. Parshuram Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
103
committed the murder of Nageshwar Chaubey.
Accused persons were armed with deadly
weapons. It is further submitted that surviving
accused, Budhiram took out of bomb from his
bag and threw towards the deceased at the
time of occurrence which created a lot of noise
and smoke after that the accused-Budhiram
picked up the rifle of the deceased and fled
away. Another surviving accused- Kamla
Lohar was armed with Lathi and he also
attacked on the deceased.

23. It is next submitted by learned AGA
that both the surviving accused persons played
active role in the commission of offence but
the learned Trial Court did not appreciate the
evidence in right perspective and mainly held
that at the time of occurrence, co-accused-
Krishnadeo alias Jhala was sitting in the
chamber of District Government Counsel for
preparation of his another case. The District
Government Counsel is examined before the
Trial Court and on the basis of the aforesaid
plea of alibi, all the accused persons were
convicted by Trial Court. While the plea of
alibi was taken only in respect of co-accused
Krishnadeo alias Jhala, hence, there is inherent
error in the impugned judgment, the appeal is
liable to be allowed.

24. Learned counsel for the accused-
Budhiram and Kamla Lohar submitted that in
the antimortem injuries and in the postmortem
report, there is no injury of bomb and lathi. It
goes to show that Budhiram and Kamla Lohar
were not present at the time of occurrence and
they were falsely implicated in this case on the
basis of village party and enmity.

25. This is the occurrence of the year
1982. Perusal of postmortem report goes to
show that there are several ante-mortem of
punchered wound which were caused by the
pellets of gunshot. Hence, mainly there are
injury of gunshot wound and there is no
injuries which could be caused either by the
throwing of bomb or by lathi danda.

26. Hence, the presence of surviving
accused persons is found doubtful by the
learned trial court and it is the settled
principles of law that if the two views of
possible, one favouring to the prosecution
and other favouring to the accused, the
view favouring to the accused should be
adopted.

27. The place of occurrence, the
testimony of the witnesses and the ultimate
analysis will not permit us to take a different
view than that taken by the learned Judge.

28. Hence, in view of the matter & on
the contours of the judgment of the Apex
Court, we concur with the learned Sessions
Judge. The appeal sans merits and is
dismissed. The record and proceedings be sent
back to the Court below. The bail and bail
bonds are cancelled.
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 103
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 23.12.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 31424 of 2021

Parshuram ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Amrendra Nath Tripathi, Alok Kumar, Raj
Kumar Vishwakarma

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Anurag Kumar Singh, Rakesh Kumar
Chaudhary, Sanjay Kumar Yadav