# State of U.P v. Panna Lal

- **Citation:** (2023) 5 ILRA 1396
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-02-14
- **Case number:** Government Appeal No. 845 of 2018
- **Bench:** Siddhartha Varma, Manish Kumar Nigam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-v-panna-lal-50107
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Section 304 - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 313 - Appeal
against
acquittal
-
Circumstantial
Evidence - FIR was lodged on 05.01.2017,
alleging that accused had killed his father,
who was around 90 years of age - Accused
pressurised his father to give money to
him so that he could buy liquor - Charges
framed, acquitted - St. argued that PW-2
had
actually
seen
the
crime
being
committed - Held, unless the view taken
by Trial Court was a view which could not
have been possibly taken on the basis of
evidence available on record, it cannot be
said that view taken by Trial Court was
not a reasonably possible view - Perusal of
St.ments of witnesses shows that findings
of Trial Court were appropriate - Trial
Court's view was definitely a possible
view,
not
perverse
-
Hence,
appeal
dismissed. (Para 2, 7, 10)

Appeal Dismissed. (E-13)
5 All. State of U.P. Vs. Panna Lal
1397
List of Cases cited:

## Text

1396 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
today with interest at the rate of 7.5% from
the date of filing of the claim petition till
the amount is deposited. The amount
already deposited be deducted from the
amount to be deposited. The Insurance
Company who will deposit the entire
amount can have their right to recover the
amount from owner and the Insurance
Company of the other vehicle. As far as
deceased is concerned, it is a case of
composite negligence, hence, the amount
cannot be deducted from the compensation
awarded to the claimants who are the heirs
of a non tort-feasor.

20. In view of the ratio laid down by
Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of
Smt. Hansagori P. Ladhani v/s The
Oriental
Insurance
Company
Ltd.,
reported in 2007(2) GLH 291 and this
High Court in , total amount of interest,
accrued on the principal amount of
compensation is to be apportioned on
financial year to financial year basis and if
the interest payable to claimant for any
financial
year
exceeds
Rs.50,000/-,
insurance company/owner is/are entitled to
deduct appropriate amount under the head
of 'Tax Deducted at Source' as provided u/s
194A (3) (ix) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
and if the amount of interest does not
exceeds Rs.50,000/- in any financial year,
registry of this Tribunal is directed to allow
the claimant to withdraw the amount
without producing the certificate from the
concerned Income- Tax Authority. The
aforesaid view has been reiterated by this
High Court in Review Application No.1 of
2020 in First Appeal From Order No.23 of
2001 (Smt. Sudesna and others Vs. Hari
Singh and another) and in First Appeal
From Order No.2871 of 2016 (Tej Kumari
Sharma v. Chola Mandlam M.S. General
Insurance Co. Ltd.) decided on 19.3.2021
while disbursing the amount.

21. This Court is thankful to the
learned Advocates for ably assisting this
Court.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 1396
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.02.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
THE HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.

Government Appeal No. 845 of 2018

State of U.P. ...Appellant
Versus
Panna Lal ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellant:
G.A., Sri Hari Pratap Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Party:

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Section 304 - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 313 - Appeal
against
acquittal
-
Circumstantial
Evidence - FIR was lodged on 05.01.2017,
alleging that accused had killed his father,
who was around 90 years of age - Accused
pressurised his father to give money to
him so that he could buy liquor - Charges
framed, acquitted - St. argued that PW-2
had
actually
seen
the
crime
being
committed - Held, unless the view taken
by Trial Court was a view which could not
have been possibly taken on the basis of
evidence available on record, it cannot be
said that view taken by Trial Court was
not a reasonably possible view - Perusal of
St.ments of witnesses shows that findings
of Trial Court were appropriate - Trial
Court's view was definitely a possible
view,
not
perverse
-
Hence,
appeal
dismissed. (Para 2, 7, 10)

Appeal Dismissed. (E-13)
5 All. State of U.P. Vs. Panna Lal
1397
List of Cases cited:

1. Sharad Birdhi Chand Vs St. of Mah., reported
in 1984 (4) SCC 116

2. Murlidhar @ Gidda & Anr. Vs St. of Karn.,
reported in (2014) 5 SCC 730

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manish Kumar
Nigam, J.)

1. Heard Shri Haripratap Gupta and
learned A.G.A. for the State and also
perused the record.

2. A First Information Report was
lodged on 05.01.2017 alleging that in the
previous night the accused had killed
Ramnath the father of the accused and the
informant. The father of the accused Panna
Lal Kushwaha, it has been stated the
informant Vijay, was around 90 years of
age and was being all the time pressurised
by the accused Panna Lal to give money to
him so that he could buy liquor, etc. It has
also been stated in the First Information
report that the brother of the first informant
was a little mentally disbalanced. Upon the
First Information Report being lodged,
Case Crime No. 14 of 2017 under Section
304 IPC was registered. Investigation
followed and thereafter charge-sheet was
submitted. Thereafter the Court framed
charges and trial commenced. After the
trial when the case resulted in acquittal, the
State filed the instant Government Appeal.

3. In the trial Court from the side of
the prosecution PW-1 Vijay Kushwaha,
PW-2 Keshav Khan, PW-3 Constable Ajay
Kumar, PW-4 Dr. Parutosh Shukla, PW-5
Sub-Inspector Vijay Singh Yadav, PW-6
Sub-Inspector
Nitesh
Kumar
were
examined. Documentary evidence were
there in the form of FIR, Chick Report,
Spot Inspection, Panchayat Nama, Naksha
Photonash, Challan of the dead body and
the Post Mortem Report.

4. The accused has given his
statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and
had denied the committing of the crime.

5. In his statement before the trial
Court PW-1 who was the first informant
had stated that the accused was staying
with the deceased (father) and because PW1 was all the time afraid of the fact that the
accused Panna Lal would also indulge in
Marpeet with him he used to stay away
from the family. He has also stated that
Panna Lal, the accused used to indulge in
various types of intoxication and for that
purpose he used to always demand money
from his father and when that money was
not given to him he used to indulge in
Marpeet.

6. In the night of 04/05.01.2017 it was
stated by him that Panna Lal had beaten the
deceased Ramnath black and blue and
when the first informant reached the house
of the deceased in the morning he had
found that the father was still breathing and
he had also uttered that the Panna Lal had
beaten him. The first informant had
therefore rushed with his father to the
hospital where he died on the way and
consequently thereafter he had gone to
lodge the First Information Report. PW-2 is
another witness of fact. He has stated that
he was having his lock and key shop in the
neighborhood
and
in
the
night
of
4/5.1.2017 he had crossed the house of the
deceased Ramnath and had heard some
verbal altercation taking place between the
father and the son. The other prosecution
witnesses were formal police witnesses.
However, the learned A.G.A. since had laid
stress on the statement of PW-4, who had
proved the Post Mortem Report and had
1398 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
brought to the notice of the trial Court, the
12 injuries which were found on the body
of the deceased. The PW-5 again is the
Sub-Inspector who has proved the First
Information Report and he was also the
Investigating Officer.

7. The court below after dealing with all
the evidence which were led before it,
concluded that the case was that of
circumstantial evidence and after relying upon
the case of Sharad Birdhi Chand vs. State of
Maharashtra, reported in 1984 (4) SCC 116
had found that as all the links to prove that the
crime which had been committed by the
accused were not being found the case had to
result in an acquittal. It has also stated that
substantially evidence were not such which
would lead to the only conclusion that the crime
had taken place on account of the fact that the
accused had pre-planned the crime and
thereafter had committed the same.

8. Learned A.G.A. has argued that if the
evidence which was there before the trial Court
was looked into and specially the statement of
PW-2 Keshav Khan then it would be clear that
Keshav Khan had actually seen the crime being
committed.

9. Having heard learned A.G.A. and after
having gone through the record, the Court is of
the view that the view taken by the trial Court
was a possible view.

10. On a careful perusal of the judgment
on record, we find that it cannot be said that the
view taken by the Trial Court was perverse or
unreasonable. Simply because another view
might have been taken on the evidence
available would not give us any ground for
interfering with the order of acquittal. Unless
the view taken by the Trial Court was a view
which could not have been possibly taken on
the basis of the evidence available on record, it
cannot be said that the view taken by the Trial
Court was not a reasonably possible view. In
fact, the perusal of the statements of the
witnesses definitely shows that the findings of
the Trial Court were appropriate.

11. This Court which is sitting in appeal
over a judgment of acquittal as per the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Murlidhar
alias Gidda & Anr. vs. State of Karnataka
reported in0 can only interfere in an appeal if
the view taken by the Trial Court was not a
view which was possible. Considering the
inconsistencies, improvements and also the fact
that essential ingredients to constitute the
offence charged against the accused were not
found to be proved beyond reasonable doubt,
we are of the view that the Trial Court's view
was definitely a possible view. Hence, the
instant appeal is liable to be dismissed.

12. Under such circumstances, the Court
is of the view that there is absolutely no error in
the assessment of the Trial Court.

13. In view of the aforesaid, the appeal is
dismissed at the admission stage itself and no
leave to appeal is being granted.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 1398
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

Writ Tax No.4 of 2022
And
Writ Tax No.5 of 2022

M/s Diamond Steel, Fatehpur ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner: