# Subrati v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2021) 9 ILRA 132
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-09-17
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 254 of 1999
- **Bench:** Karunesh Singh Pawar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/subrati-v-state-of-u-p-47518
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Criminal law - Indian Penal Code,1860
- Section 364 - Kidnapping in order to
9 All. Subrati Vs. State of U.P.
133
commit murder - Not named in FIR -
Sentence
of
six
years
rigorous
imprisonment ordered - Declared guilt on
the ground that the appellant had taken
the victim from the latter's home on
motorcycle - Other accused acquitted -
Ingredient
of
offence
u/s
364
IPC,
discussed
-
Relevancy
of
intention,
explained - Held, to establish an offence
punishable under Section 364 I.P.C., it
must be proved that the person charged
with the offence had the intention at the
time of the abduction that the person
abducted would be murdered or would be
so disposed of as to be put to danger of
being murdered - Prosecution had to
prove that the appellant accused at the
time when he took away the victim, had
this particular intention - However, no
finding has been recorded by the trial
Court on this element of the offence -
High Court found the conviction order
suffers from serious infirmity. (Para 20, 21
and 28)
B. Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code,1860 - Section 313 - Defence case -
Duty of trial court - Judgment neither
disclosed the case of the accused, nor
there is any whisper as regards the
defence of the accused appellant - No
specific question was asked from the
accused under Section 313 CrPC as to
what he did after taking the deceased
from his house - Held, the defence of the
appellant has not been dealt with. Further
the statement too has been recorded in a
very casual and cursory manner, without
asking the accused relevant and direct
question - Not only the judgment of the
trial Court but also the statement under
Section 313 CrPC is flawed. (Para 25 and
27)
C. Evidence Law - Evidence Act, 1872 -
Section 106 - Burden of proving the fact
especially within knowledge - Scope and
applicability - S. 106 of the Evidence Act
may not be intended to relieve the
prosecution of its burden to prove the
guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt - It would only be applicable where
the prosecution had succeeded in proving
facts - Since the prosecution failed to
establish the facts, it cannot be said that
the accused failed to offer sufficient
explanation
to
attract
Section
106
Evidence Act. (Para 27)
Appeal allowed (E-1)
Cases relied on :-

## Text

132 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
because in that case deceased was beaten
by using the stick. It was held that stick
could not be held the weapon from which
knowledge can be attributed that the blow
by such stick could cause death. In this
case, there were repeated blows by the
appellants on chest, stomach and pedu of
the deceased for which deceased had
knowledge that such type of blows could
cause fatal injury in the internal organs of
the deceased. Therefore, both the above
cases did not apply in this case due to
different set of facts. As far as common
intention is concerned, it is not necessary
that it should always be premeditated. It
can take place on the spot also. It is very
much on record that when the quarrel
started by striking the shoulders of
appellants and informant-Radhey Shyam
and on protest by informant, appellants
started slapping him and after that when
deceased reached the spot, appellants left
informant and started beating deceasedRam Dayal. Hence, it cannot be believed
that quarrel took place all of sudden.
Appellants intentionally started beating the
deceased, therefore, it is very much clear
that they were having common intention to
beat the deceased and they repeatedly gave
blows to him. Hence, learned trial court has
rightly convicted the appellants with the aid
of Section 34 IPC.

15. Learned counsel for the appellants
has also submitted that in case Court comes
to the conclusion that appellants are guilty
then keeping in view their age to be nearly
60-62 years, their sentence can be modified
as undergone. But, in my opinion, this case
is not a case where appellants can be set
free as undergone. Learned trial court has
sentenced the appellants only for three
years under Section 304(2) read with
Section 34 IPC. The sentence awarded by
the learned trial court, in my considered
opinion, is not very harsh keeping in view
the offence of the appellants.

16. In view of the discussion as
above, this Court is of definite view that
learned trial court appreciated the evidence
on record in right perspective and rightly
convicted the appellants under Section 304
(2) read with Section 34 IPC. The appeal
has no force and is liable to be dismissed.

17. The appeal is, accordingly,
dismissed. Appellants are reported to be on
bail, their bail bonds stand cancelled and
sureties are discharged. Appellants are
directed to surrender before the courtbelow forthwith to serve the remaining
sentence.

18. Let a copy of this judgment be
sent to concerned court for ensuring
compliance.
----------
(2021)09ILR A132
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 17.09.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 254 of 1999

Subrati ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
V.N.
Shukla,
Abhishek
Misra,
Shishir
Pradhan

Counsel for the Respondent:
-----

A. Criminal law - Indian Penal Code,1860
- Section 364 - Kidnapping in order to
9 All. Subrati Vs. State of U.P.
133
commit murder - Not named in FIR -
Sentence
of
six
years
rigorous
imprisonment ordered - Declared guilt on
the ground that the appellant had taken
the victim from the latter's home on
motorcycle - Other accused acquitted -
Ingredient
of
offence
u/s
364
IPC,
discussed
-
Relevancy
of
intention,
explained - Held, to establish an offence
punishable under Section 364 I.P.C., it
must be proved that the person charged
with the offence had the intention at the
time of the abduction that the person
abducted would be murdered or would be
so disposed of as to be put to danger of
being murdered - Prosecution had to
prove that the appellant accused at the
time when he took away the victim, had
this particular intention - However, no
finding has been recorded by the trial
Court on this element of the offence -
High Court found the conviction order
suffers from serious infirmity. (Para 20, 21
and 28)
B. Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code,1860 - Section 313 - Defence case -
Duty of trial court - Judgment neither
disclosed the case of the accused, nor
there is any whisper as regards the
defence of the accused appellant - No
specific question was asked from the
accused under Section 313 CrPC as to
what he did after taking the deceased
from his house - Held, the defence of the
appellant has not been dealt with. Further
the statement too has been recorded in a
very casual and cursory manner, without
asking the accused relevant and direct
question - Not only the judgment of the
trial Court but also the statement under
Section 313 CrPC is flawed. (Para 25 and
27)
C. Evidence Law - Evidence Act, 1872 -
Section 106 - Burden of proving the fact
especially within knowledge - Scope and
applicability - S. 106 of the Evidence Act
may not be intended to relieve the
prosecution of its burden to prove the
guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt - It would only be applicable where
the prosecution had succeeded in proving
facts - Since the prosecution failed to
establish the facts, it cannot be said that
the accused failed to offer sufficient
explanation
to
attract
Section
106
Evidence Act. (Para 27)
Appeal allowed (E-1)
Cases relied on :-
1. Chunda Murmu Vs St. of W.B., (2012)5 SCC
753
2. Satbir Singh & anr. Vs St. of Har. 2021 SCC
Online SC 404
(Delivered by Hon'ble Karunesh Singh
Pawar, J.)

1. Present criminal appeal under
Section 374 CrPC has been filed against the
judgment of conviction and sentence dated
18.3.1999, passed by Additional District &
Sessions Judge, Barabanki in Sessions Trial
No.448 of 192, Case Crime No.138 of 1991
under sections 364, 302, 379 I.P.C., P.S.
Kursi, district Barabanki whereby and
whereunder the appellant accused Subrati
has been convicted and sentenced to
undergo six years R.I. and to pay a fine of
Rs.2000/-, with default stipulation, under
Section 364 I.P.C. Other accused persons
Subrati, Taukeer and Abul Hassan have
been acquitted of the charges framed
against them.

2. Heard learned counsel for the
appellant Mr. Abhishek Mishra, learned
Additional Government Advocate for the
State Mr. Ashok Kumar and perused the
record.

3. Prosecution case as per the first
information report is that the informant
Shashibhal Tripathi son of Brijbhushan is a
resident of village Khanwaha, P.S. Deva,
district Barabanki. Around three years ago,
134 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
one Malik of Gausar was killed in village
Kutlupur, P.S. Fatehpur, in which, son of
the complainant was made accused. Since
then, the entire family of Malik was
inimical
towards
the
family
of
the
informant. It is for this reason that the son
of the informant used to live in Lucknow
and come home frequently. Today, at about
8.00a.m., he came home from Hero Honda.
Subrati came to his house and asked him to
accompany him to go to Gramsevak for
urgent work. His son went with Subrati on
Hero Honda. Then he received information
that his son has been killed at 11.00a.m. in
village Garhi, Mauja Kursi. Thus, the
informant has suspicion that his son has
been killed by Tauqeer, his father Abdul
Hassan, resident of police station Kursi.

The first information report was
registered on 2.12.1991 at 12.10p.m. and
Case Crime No.138 of 1991 under sections
364, 302 I.P.C. has been registered.

4. The investigating officer inspected
the place of occurrence, took the statement
of prosecution witnesses, prepared site plan
and after completing the formalities filed
charge-sheet in the court of competent
jurisdiction. After committal of the case to
the Court of Sessions, charges were
framed.

5. The prosecution to prove its case
has produced as many as seven witnesses,
viz. P.W.1 Shashibhushan Tripathi, P.W.2
Smt.
Malti
Tripathi, mother of
the
deceased, P.W.3 Smt. Rajkumari, wife of
deceased, P.W.4 Dr. B.K. Verma who
conducted the post mortem of the deceased,
P.W.5 S.I. Shivdatt Singh, P.W.6 Azam Ali
Khan who prepared the panchayatnama,
Ext. Ka-7 and P.W.7 S.I. Rama Shankar
Yadav who had investigated the case and
filed charge-sheet.

6. P.W.1 in his examination-in-chief
stated that around six years ago, one Malik,
A.D.O.M.I. was killed in which his son
Satish (deceased) was made accused and
for this reason, the family of Malik was
inimical to them. His son used to live in
Lucknow because of fear. At the time of
death, he was having a job of cycle in Mall
kasba. He was having friendship with
accused Subrati. Abul Hassan is the father
of deceased Malik. Subrati was in collusion
with Abul Hassan. His wife asked the
deceased Satish not to have friendship with
Subrati as he is in tie with Abul Hasan and
others. The day deceased was killed, he
came to him at about 8.00a.m. from
Lucknow. Subrati came to call his son and
said that they have to go to Block Deva.
Both of them went on Hero Honda
motorcycle
to
meet
Gram
Sevak.
Thereafter, the complainant came to know
that his son has been killed at around
11.00a.m. It is stated by the witness that his
son has been killed by Subrati in collusion
with Abul Hassan and Tauqeer. He has
proved the written report, Ext. Ka-1.

In the cross-examination, witness
has stated that Subrati used to often come
to his residence when Satish was at home.
His son was in the business of engine and
cycle. On the date of incident he was at
home and he(P.W.1) was also present.
After 10-15 minutes of arrival of his son at
home, Subrati came and on the pretext of
meeting with Gram Sevak took him. Both
of them often used to come and go
together. Subrati used to get the loan
sanctioned to the farmers and provide
engines (pumping sets). It is further stated
by the witness that his son had gone with
Subrati
at
about
8.30a.m..Information
regarding murder of his son was given by
Rahmati, brother of Subrati at Deva. Then
he says that he named the accused persons
9 All. Subrati Vs. State of U.P.
135
on the basis of suspicion. It is further said
that he does not know whether ADOMI
was having friendship with his son or was
inimical with him. He then said that there
has never been any enmity between his son
and Subrati, nor it is today. He is also not
aware whether Abul Hasan and Taqeer
were inimical to his son or not. There has
been no enmity between Abul Hasan and
others with him or his son. Motorcycle has
not been recovered from the spot/place of
occurrence and till date, it has not yet been
recovered.

7. P.W. 2 Smt. Malti Tripathi is the
mother of deceased Satish. This witness
being
the
wife
of
the
complainant
Shashibhan Tripathi also deposed in tune
with that of the complainant. She deposed
that the incident of murder of Malik, in
which her son was made an accused.
Subrati was in friendship with Abul Hasan
and Tauqeer. The accused and her son were
friends. She had also warned her son not to
be in the company of Subrati as the latter
had good terms with Abul Hasan and
others. The witness has further stated that
her son would live in Lucknow due to his
being an accused in the murder of Malik.
On the day of murder, her son came home
at 8.00a.m. It was Subrati who called her
son who was having tea. The moment he
came, Subrati said that hurry up, they have
to meet Gram Sevak. The deceased went
with Subrati on Hero Honda motorcycle.
Due to murder of ADOMI, in which her
son was accused, Tauqeer and Abul Hassan
were inimical to her son.

In
cross-examination,
the
witness has stated that Subrati often used
to come to her house 3-4 times a day as
he was having friendship with her son
since childhood. She also stated that in
the murder of her son, according to the
villagers, Tauqeer and Abul Hassan are
involved. That is why, the witness had
also suspected. Her son often used to go
with Subrati on motorcycle. It is true that
on the basis of suspicion and on saying of
some persons, the names of Tauqeer,
Abul
Hassan
have
been
told
to
investigating officer. The killers had
taken the motorcycle of her son/deceased.
It is also true that the rings, money, watch
etc the deceased had at the time of
incident were looted.

8. Another fact witness P.W.3 Smt.
Rajkumari who is the wife of the
deceased Satish Chandra Tripathi has
stated on oath that three years before,
Malik was murdered and it was suspected
that her son was involved in the said
murder and thereby, the brother of Malik,
Tauqeer had inimical terms with her son.
The witness stated that Tauqeer and
Subrati are friends. On the day of the
incident, Subrati had come to her house
and called her husband. At that time, she
was not at home.

In her cross-examination the
witness has stated that Subrati would
come to her home very frequently.
Subrati used to get engines financed. The
motorcycle has also been looted on the
date of murder, which has not been
recovered till date. Her mother-in-law
told that in the murder of her husband,
Subrati, Tauqeer and Abul Hassan are
involved. This has been told by her
mother-in-law on the basis of suspicion.

9. P.W.4, P.W.5, P.W.6 and P.W.7
are the formal witnesses.

P.W.4 Dr. B.K. Verma who
conducted the post mortem of the deceased
Satish proved the Ext.Ka-2, i.e. the post
136 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
mortem report. In his cross-examination,
Dr. Verma has sated that the shot of fire
was made from the distance of 5-6'

10. P.W.5 S.I. Shiv Datt Singh proved
Ext. Ka.3.

11. P.W.6 Azam Ali Khan who
prepared panchayatnama proved it as
Ext.ka-7. In his cross-examination, the
witness stated that the statement of the
informant
and
Vimlesh
Kumar
was
recorded
after
preparation
of
panchayatnama. Vimlesh Kumar is an eyewitness. Vimlesh Kumar has stated before
him that he recognises the culprits and he
can identify them, on seeing.

12. P.W.7 is S.I. Rama Shankar
Yadav who investigated the case and filed
charge-sheet, Ext. Ka-7.

13. Statement of the accused has been
recorded under Section 313 CrPC, in which
his case is of denial.

14. Trial Court after hearing the
parties and perusal of the record as well as
appreciation of evidence(s) has convicted
the accused appellant and sentenced him
under Section 364 I.P.C.

15. While assailing the judgment of
conviction,
appellant's
counsel
has
submitted that there is no direct or
circumstantial evidence against the accused
appellant in this case. The appellant has
been falsely implicated. No motive has
been attributed by the prosecution to the
appellant. While putting question No.6
from the accused in his statement under
Section 313 CrPC the specific question that
on 2.12.1991 when the deceased Satish
came from Lucknow to his home, then
accused Subrati under the pretext of
meeting with Gram Sevak has taken the
deceased from his house with an intention
to kill or commit his murder has not been
put; rather it has been pointed out that it has
revealed in the statement of the prosecution
witnesses that on 2.12.1991 in the morning
when Satish has come to his home village
Sanwaha from Lucknow, Subrati under the
pretext to meet Gram Sevak took Satish
with him. On this, the accused Subrati
replied, "galat", i.e. wrong. which is a
serious infirmity in the judgment.

Again, while putting question
No.12, the specific evidence of particular
witnesses has not been put to him; rather
collectively in one line, the entire evidence
of prosecution has been vaguely put to him
which is not proper. It is contended that the
appellant has been implicated due to
enmity. It is lastly contended that the
deceased has been murdered by unknown
assailants and his motorcycle, money as
well as watch etc have been looted out and
thus, it is a case of loot, might have been
committed by some strangers.

16. Learned Addl. Government
Advocate has supported the judgment and
submitted that the prosecution has been
successful in proving the case against the
accused appellant.

17. I have considered the submission
advanced by appellant's counsel, learned
Addl. Government Advocate and gone
through the judgment rendered by the trial
Court as also perused the lower court's
records.

18. A perusal of the judgment and
order under appeal reveals that the trial
Court while acquitting the accused persons,
namely Subrati, present appellant, Tauqeer
and Abul Hassan for the offence under
9 All. Subrati Vs. State of U.P.
137
Section 302, read with Section 34 and
Section 379/34, has held the appellant
Subrati guilty of offence under Section 364
I.P.C. on the only ground that he had taken
the victim Satish from the latter's home on
motorcycle at about 8.00 in the morning. In
the first information report, the appellant
has not been named, nor any suspicion has
been raised as against him.

19. Before proceeding further, it
would be appropriate to go through the
ingredients of Section 364 I.P.C. to prove
the offence. To quote Section 364 I.P.C. :

"364. Kidnapping or abducting in
order to murder.-Whoever kidnaps or
abducts any person in order that such
person may be murdered or may be so
disposed of as to be put in danger of being
murdered,
shall
be
punished
with
imprisonment
for
life
or
rigorous
imprisonment for a term which may extend
to ten years, and shall also be liable to
fine."

20. A bare reading of the definition of
Section
364
I.P.C.
depicts
that
the
ingredients of the said offence are (1)
abduction/kidnapping by the accused must
be proved; (2) it must also be proved that
he was kidnapped in order to ; (a) that such
person may be murdered; or (b) that such
person might be disposed of as to be put in
danger of being murdered. The intention
for which a person is kidnapped must be
gathered from the circumstances attending
prior to, at the time of and subsequent to
the commission of the offence.

21. In the case in hand, the deceased
Satish being friend of the appellant had
gone with the appellant on his motorcycle,
as usual, on being called by the latter in the
morning. Except being called by the
appellant, there is nothing on record to
show that the appellant is in any way
involved in the commission of alleged
offence. The action of the accused
appellant in taking the victim on the
motorcycle with a view to meet Gram
Sevak
cannot
attract
the
necessary
ingredients of either the offence of
kidnapping or abduction so as to attract
Section 364 I.P.C. as held by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Chunda Murmu versus
State of West Bengal (2012)5 SCC 753. In
this context, it is relevant to quote para 18
as under :

"18. Insofar as the offence under
Section 364 IPC is concerned, we have
considered the materials on record on the
basis of which the aforesaid offence has
been held to be proved. According to us,
the action of the accused in bringing back
his wife to the matrimonial home from the
house of PW 6 Bishu Murmu cannot attract
the necessary ingredients of either the
offence of kidnapping or abduction so as to
attract Section 364 IPC.

From the above case law as well
as the ingredients of Section 364 I.P.C., it
is evident that to establish an offence
punishable under Section 364 I.P.C., it
must be proved that the person charged
with the offence had the intention at the
time of the abduction that the person
abducted would be murdered or would be
so disposed of as to be put to danger of
being
murdered.
In
this
case,
the
prosecution had to prove that the appellant
accused at the time when he took away the
victim Satish had this particular intention.
On this element of the offence, no finding
has been recorded by the trial Court.

22. It is further significant to note that
Malik who was the son of Abul Hassan and
138 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
brother of Tauqeer was killed three years
back, in which the present appellant was
made an accused. In case it is taken to be
true, for argument's sake, that due to
alleged involvement of the victim, the
relations between family members of
deceased Malik and the victim were not
good, but it cannot reasonably be inferred
that after three years of the incident of
murder of Malik, the incident of murder of
Satish can be committed with a view to
wreak vengeance, at the instance of the
appellant who was in friendship with the
victim since childhood.

23. P.W.1 Shashi Bhan Tripathi in his
statement has deposed that there has never
been any enmity between his son and the
appellant Subrati, nor it is today. The
mother of the deceased whose statement
has been recorded as P.W.2 too has stated
that Subrati used to come her home 3-4
times a day, since childhood. Thus, it is
proved beyond doubt that Subrati and the
victim were the real friends.

P.W.3 who is the wife of the
deceased has stated that she was not at
home at the time her husband went with
Subrati. She received the information of
murder of her husband in the evening at
about 4.00p.m. Although she deposed that
in the murder of her husband, Subrati,
present appellant, Tauqeer and Abul
Hassan are involved, but she has also stated
that she is telling the names of the accused
on the basis of suspicion as told by her
mother-in-law.

24. It is further important to note that
though P.W. 6 Azam Ali Khan who
prepared
panchayatnama
stated
that
Vimlesh Kumar is an eye-witness and
he(Vimlesh Kumar) can recognise the
culprits, on seeing but there is no whisper
in the judgment passed by the trial Court, in
this context. From the perusal of the record,
it does not appear that this important
witness has been examined.

25. It is further worthy to note that the
learned trial court, although recorded the
statement of the accused appellant under
Section 313 CrPC, but a perusal of the
judgment does not disclose the case of the
accused, nor there is any whisper as regards
the defence of the accused appellant. It is
only after holding the accused appellant
guilty of offence under Section 364 I.P.C.
that the trial court has mentioned in a
casual manner that "heard learned counsel
for the accused Subrati and Subrati", on
the point of sentence. The defence of the
appellant has not been dealt with. Further
the statement too has been recorded in a
very casual and cursory manner, without
asking the accused relevant and direct
question, as referred to above. Thus, not
only the judgment of the trial Court but
also the statement under Section 313 CrPC
is flawed.

26. In Satbir Singh and another
versus State of Haryana 2021 SCC Online
SC 404, Hon'ble Supreme Court has
observed that that the trial court should not
record statement of the accused in a very
casual
and
cursory
manner,
without
specifically questioning the accused as to
his defence. To quote para 22 :

"It is a matter of grave concern
that, often, Trial Courts record the
statement of an accused under Section 313
CrPC in a very casual and cursory
manner, without specifically questioning
the accused as to his defense. It ought to be
noted that the examination of an accused
under Section 313 CrPC cannot be treated
as a mere procedural formality, as it is
9 All. Neeraj @ Kalua Vs. State of U.P.
139
based on the fundamental principle of
fairness. This provision incorporates the
valuable principle of natural justice "audi
alteram partem", as it enables the accused
to
offer
an
explanation
for
the
incriminatory material appearing against
him. Therefore, it imposes an obligation on
the part of the Court to question the
accused fairly, with care and caution. The
Court
must
put
incriminating
circumstances before the accused and seek
his response. A duty is also cast on the
counsel of the accused to prepare his
defense, since the inception of the trial,
with due caution, keeping in consideration
the peculiarities of Section 304-B, IPC read
with
Section
113-B,
Evidence
Act.
"(Emphasised by me)

27. No specific question was asked
from the accused under Section 313 CrPC as
to what he did after taking the deceased from
his house. Section 106 of the Evidence Act
may not be intended to relieve the
prosecution of its burden to prove the guilt of
the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Section
106 of the Evidence Act would only be
applicable
where
the
prosecution
had
succeeded in proving facts. Since the
prosecution failed to establish the facts, it
cannot be said that the accused failed to offer
sufficient explanation to attract Section 106
Evidence Act.

Further it appears from the perusal
of the statement of the accused under Section
313 as also the judgment on the point that the
appellant was not afforded opportunity to put
his defence. Learned trial court also did not
examine the defence of the accused. The
court must put incriminating circumstances
before the accused and seek his response.
Section 232 CrPC provides, "If, after taking
the evidence for the prosecution, examining
the accused and hearing the prosecution and
the defence on the point, the Judge considers
that there is no evidence that the accused
committed the offence, the Judge shall record
an order of acquittal. Such discretion must be
utilised by the trial Courts as an obligation of
best efforts.

28. It also appears that there is no
evidence on the record nor discussed in the
judgment of the trial Court to show that the
deceased Satish had been abducted for
causing his murder or with a view to see that
he was murdered, as envisaged under Section
364 I.P.C. Learned trial Judge nowhere in the
judgment gave his satisfaction as regards the
state of mind of the appellant accused at the
time of the alleged abduction and thus, the
judgment of conviction suffers from serious
infirmity and warrants interference by this
Court in its appellate jurisdiction.

29. In view of what has been discussed
hereinabove, the appeal is allowed and the
judgment and order dated 18.3.1999 (supra)
is set aside. The bail bonds are discharged.

Pending application, if any stands
disposed of.

30. Let a copy of the order be sent to
the trial Court as also the lower court records.
----------
(2021)09ILR A139
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.08.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAI TYAGI, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 414 of 2017

Neeraj @ Kalua ...Appellant (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent