# Suneet Kumar v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2023) 4 ILRA 978
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-04-07
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1141 of 2003
- **Bench:** Karunesh Singh Pawar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/suneet-kumar-v-state-of-u-p-49229
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Section 376 - Punishment for Rape - By
impugned order, sentenced to rigorous
imprisonment - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 164, 313 -
Appeal against conviction - As per FIR -
On 14.02.2002, daughter of informant
aged about 13 years while returning home
after cutting barseem, accused called her
in khalihan on pretext of picking up a
bundle of paddy - When her daughter
reached there, accused forcibly raped her
- Informant who was nearby digging
carrot roots, he saw accused running
away from khalihan - She told him that
accused raped her - After investigation,
chargesheet filed - Prosecution produced
seven witnesses - Held, in the offence of
rape, the St.ment of prosecutrix is utmost
4 All. Suneet Kumar Vs. State of U.P.
979
important - The St.ment of prosecutrix
should be of sterling quality - On such
kind of shaky testimony of prosecutrix
which is improbable and contradictory to
St.ments
of
PW-1,
PW-3
and
PW-4
without there being any corroborative
material, conviction on such type of sole
testimony
of
prosecutrix
cannot
be
sustained - The delay in lodging F.I.R.,
non-examination of scribe of F.I.R., inconsistent
testimony
of
prosecutrix,
associated
circumstances
and
uncorroborated medical evidence cast
doubt on testimony of victim - Since the
evidence of prosecutrix PW-2, PW-1 are
contradictory,
the
testimony
of
prosecutrix has also been contradicted by
I.O. - Hence, trial court has convicted
accused merely on conjectures, surmises
and assumptions, the prosecution has
failed to prove its case beyond reasonable
doubt. (Para 2, 3, 5, 6, 36, 39, 40)

Appeal is allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

978 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
he was absconding to avoid his arrest. This
circumstance
also
goes
against
the
appellant.

22. The informant PW-1 has said that
scribe of F.I.R. Mhd. Khalid took his
thumb impression on a blank paper and
later on had written report on it. As
discussed above, the informant has fully
proved the written report and moreover
informant could not establish any enmity
between the appellant and Mhd. Khalid due
to which Khalid could implicate the
appellant falsely. F.I.R. of this case was
lodged very promptly. The ''Danda' used in
crime was recovered from the house of the
appellant on his pointing out. The injury
sustained by deceased Akbari was single
injury on the right side of her head which
was of sized 4cm x 3cm and it was
contusion. Such type of injury was possible
to be inflicted by ''Danda', recovered from
appellant's house.

23. Perusal of judgment of trial court
shows
that
learned
trial
court
has
scrutinized the testimony of PW-1 very
closely and carefully and I am fully
convinced with the conclusion of learned
trial court holding appellant guilty. Learned
trial
court
sought
very
relevant
corroboration by circumstantial evidence
also in scrutinizing evidence of PW-1. It is
correct that deceased sustained only a
single blow on her head and weapon used
in the crime is ''Danda'. It means appellant
gave a single blow of ''Danda' to his
mother. Hence it can be opined that
appellant had no intention to kill his mother
but he had knowledge that by inflicting
such injury death could be caused. Hence
learned trial court has rightly convicted the
appellant for the offence under Section 304
Part (2) of I.P.C. and sentenced him
accordingly.

24. Hence, I find no merit in this
appeal because learned trial court has
rightly appreciated the evidence on record
and rightly convicted and sentenced the
appellant and appeal is liable to be
dismissed.

25. Accordingly, this criminal appeal
sans merit and is dismissed.
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 978
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 07.04.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1141 of 2003

Suneet Kumar ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Mukul Rakesh, Sheo Prakash Singh

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Section 376 - Punishment for Rape - By
impugned order, sentenced to rigorous
imprisonment - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 164, 313 -
Appeal against conviction - As per FIR -
On 14.02.2002, daughter of informant
aged about 13 years while returning home
after cutting barseem, accused called her
in khalihan on pretext of picking up a
bundle of paddy - When her daughter
reached there, accused forcibly raped her
- Informant who was nearby digging
carrot roots, he saw accused running
away from khalihan - She told him that
accused raped her - After investigation,
chargesheet filed - Prosecution produced
seven witnesses - Held, in the offence of
rape, the St.ment of prosecutrix is utmost
4 All. Suneet Kumar Vs. State of U.P.
979
important - The St.ment of prosecutrix
should be of sterling quality - On such
kind of shaky testimony of prosecutrix
which is improbable and contradictory to
St.ments
of
PW-1,
PW-3
and
PW-4
without there being any corroborative
material, conviction on such type of sole
testimony
of
prosecutrix
cannot
be
sustained - The delay in lodging F.I.R.,
non-examination of scribe of F.I.R., inconsistent
testimony
of
prosecutrix,
associated
circumstances
and
uncorroborated medical evidence cast
doubt on testimony of victim - Since the
evidence of prosecutrix PW-2, PW-1 are
contradictory,
the
testimony
of
prosecutrix has also been contradicted by
I.O. - Hence, trial court has convicted
accused merely on conjectures, surmises
and assumptions, the prosecution has
failed to prove its case beyond reasonable
doubt. (Para 2, 3, 5, 6, 36, 39, 40)

Appeal is allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. Mohd. Ali @ Guddu Vs St. of U. P. (2015) 7
SCC 272

2. Hem Raj Vs St. of Har., (2014) 2 SCC 395

(Delivered by Hon'ble Karunesh Singh
Pawar, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The appeal has been filed against the
judgment and order dated 11 .07.2003 passed
by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track
Court No. 2), Raibareli in S.T. No. 241/2002,
case crime No. 68/2002, under Section 376
I.P.C., P.S. Bachhrawan, District Raibarelly
"State Vs. Suneel Kumar", whereby the
appellant has been convicted under Section
376 I.P.C. sentencing the appellant to
undergo for a period of seven years of
rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.
1000/-, with default provisions.

3. As per the written report dated
14.02.2002 one Krishan son of Ram Prasad
gave information to P.S. Bachhrawan,
Raibareli that daughter of the informant aged
about 13 years while returning home after
cutting barseem, Suneel called her daughter
in the khalihan on the pretext of picking up a
bundle of paddy straw where lot of paddy
was piled. When her daughter reached there,
Suneel got hold of her and dragged between
the piled paddy straw and forcibly raped her.
To save herself, her daughter raised alarm,
hearing which, the informant who was nearby
digging carrot roots ran, then, he saw Suneel
running away from khalihan. Upon reaching
the spot, his daughter told him that she has
been raped by Suneel.

4. It is further alleged in the written
report that due to fear of the accused, he is
giving
report
today
on
13.02.2002.
Consequently, chik FIR was registered which
is exhibited as Ex. Ka-10. Written report is Ex.
Ka-1. The investigating officer has prepared
the site plan which is exhibited as Ex. Ka-4.
The victim was subjected to medical
examination which is exhibited as Ex. Ka-5. A
supplementary medical report was also
prepared which exhibited as Ex. Ka-9.

5. After completing the investigation,
charge sheet has been filed. Committal order
was passed on 06.06.2002 by the concerned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raibareli and
thereafter charges were framed by the
Sessions Court on 19.07.2022 under Section
376 I.P.C.

6. The prosecution in support of its
case
has
produced
following
seven
witnesses:-
980 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(1) PW-1 Krishna (father of the
victim)

(2) PW-2 Anita (victim)

(3) PW-3 Doctor S.L. Sharma

(4) PW-4 Ajit Kumar Singh (Sub
Inspector)

(5) PW-5 Param Hans (Retired
Principal)

(6)
PW-6
Doctor
Kalpana
Chandra

(7) PW-7 Ram Babu Gautam

7. The statement of the accused under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. has been done on
05.03.2003 wherein he denied all the
charges leveled against him.

8. PW-1 in his statement has
submitted that the incident took place at
5:30 PM while he was digging carrot roots
and after hearing the alarm, he ran towards
khalihan where he saw accused Suneel
running away; his daughter told him that
Suneel has raped her; on the second day, he
got the report written by known person
which was read out to him and then he
signed it. He has proved the written report.

9. He also stated that the victim
studied in primary school of the village and
the transfer certificate dated 20.05.2002 of
the school has been filed by him during his
examination-in-chief.
In
his
crossexamination, he has stated that his son Ram
Chandra had died either due to train
accident or somebody killed him who went
to Punjab with the uncle of the accused
Suresh. He further stated that he met
Suresh after four days of the death of his
son and when he asked him regarding death
of his son, he stated that he fell from the
train and was cut by the train. He also
stated that after the incident Suresh and
others came in the village and went to their
home, however, they did not tell anybody
about the death of his son. They have not
told truth to him.

10. He further stated that at the time
of the incident happening with her
daughter, he was 100-125 meters away and
after hearing alarm of his daughter, he ran
towards the place of occurrence and it took
20 minutes to reach at the place of
occurrence. During the entire 20 minutes,
he kept hearing the alarm of his daughter.

11. He further stated that although the
house of the accused is in front of his
house, however, they are not in talking
terms. He also stated that while the medical
of the victim was conducted she wore the
same clothes which she wore at the time of
incident.

12. PW-2 victim has stated that the
occurrence is of 13.02.2002 at about 6 PM.
At the time of incident she was in her
khalihan and after cutting barsin she was
called by the accused Suneel requesting for
her help in picking up the piled paddy
straw. Then he caught hold of her hand and
threw her on the piled paddy straw and
raped her. While committing rape, he was
threatening the victim that if she raise
alarm she will be killed. When the grip of
Suneel on his mouth softened then she
raised alarm. Upon alarm, her father came
and at that time Suneel was running
towards west of the village after wearing
his cloths.

13. In the cross, she has stated that
prior to the occurrence, no one has raped
her, neither she is having physical relations
with anybody prior to the incident; her
father was 4-5 meters away from the place
of occurrence; her family was not in talking
terms with the family of the accused as
they were not right people; she went to the
4 All. Suneet Kumar Vs. State of U.P.
981
police station wearing same clothes which
she wore at the time of rape; her clothes
were taken by the police and were returned
after one month.

14. She further stated that she did not
know as to what was the height of the piled
paddy straw upon which she was raped; she
also did not know as to after how much
time her father came after alarm was raised
by her.

15. She also stated that after the
incident she along with her father went
home and on that night, neither the accused
or his father came into her home. She
denied the suggestion that due to enmity
the accused has been falsely implicated.

16. PW-3 Dr. S.L. Sharma has stated
that x-ray of the victim was conducted by
the technician in his observation and
supervision. On the basis of x-ray report he
has prepared the report Ex. Ka-3 in which
all the epiphysis of the elbow joint were
fused, however, epiphysis of lower end of
radius and ulna were not fused. PW-3 Dr.
S.L. Sharma, has proved Ex.-Ka-3.

17. PW-4 S.I. Ajeet Kumar Singh has
proved the site plan as Ex. Ka-4. He has
stated that in his presence, the F.I.R. was
registered, he took the statement of PW-1
and PW-2 and on the pointing out of both
of them, he has inspected the site and
thereafter he has arrested the accused. The
statement of the prosecutrix under Section
164 Cr.P.C. was made on 14.03.2002 and
after perusing the same and after recording
the summary of her statement in the case
diary and concluding the evidence, the
charge sheet has been filed which is Ex.
Ka-5.

18. PW-4 has stated that PW-1 has
not told him in his statement under Section
161 Cr.P.C. that the cause of delay in
lodging the F.I.R. is any kind of threat by
the accused or his family members, rather
PW-1 has told him that since it was late
evening, therefore, for this reason he did
not go to lodge the report. He has not taken
the barseen which was being carried out by
the victim while she was returning. He has
also stated that he has inspected the place
where the victim was raped and from where
the victim was dragged towards the A point
in the site plan. Distance between them is
20 paces away. While she was dragged to
the place of rape, she has not raised alarm.
He has also stated that he has not taken into
the possession of the clothes worn by the
prosecutrix while she was raped. He further
stated that when she came with her father
for lodging report, she has not shown the
clothes to him. Pile of the paddy straw on
which victim was raped was 8 feet in
height and no document relating to the age
of the victim was given by her or her
family members.

19. PW-5 Param Hans is a retired
Principal.
He
has
prepared
Transfer
Certificate of Primary School Mannawan of
the victim dated 20.03.2002 which has
been brought by him at the time of his
examination-in-chief.

20. PW-6 Dr. Kalpana Chandra has
medically
examined
the
victim
on
14.02.2002. She has not found any injury
on the external examination of the victim.
In the internal examination, hymen was
found absent. She has stated that no
opinion of rape can be given and the
victim was habitual of having sexual
intercourse.
982 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

21. PW-7 is constable Ram Babu
Gautam who has registered F.I.R. and has
proved the same as Ex.Ka-2.

22. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that there is unexplained delay in
lodging the F.I.R. There is admitted enmity
between the family of the applicant and the
victim. The statements of PW-1, PW-2 and
PW-4 are contradictory. It has been further
submitted that since the testimony of the
victim is contradictory to the testimony of
PW-1 and PW-4 and without there being
any corroborative material, he could not
have been convicted.

23. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has
opposed the appeal submitting that the
prosecution has been successful in proving
the offence beyond reasonable doubt. It is
further submitted that testimony of PW-2
alone is sufficient to convict the accused.

24. Perused the record.

25. Perusal of the statement of PW-1
shows that he has admitted the enmity with
the uncle of the accused Suresh due to the
death of the son of the complainant who
went with Suresh for earning livelihood to
Punjab. As per his statement, at the time of
incident he was at the distance of 100-125
meters from the place of occurrence and he
took 20 minutes to reach at the place of
occurrence. He further stated that in his
examination-in-chief, he saw the appellant
running from khalihan when he reached at
the place of occurrence. He has expressed
ignorance to the fact that whether the
clothes which were being worn by the
prosecutrix have been taken by the doctor
or not. He also state that transfer certificate
has not been given to the I.O., his daughter
has studied in primary school and has filed
the transfer certificate on 20.03.2002 on the
date on his examination. He has further
stated that during entire 20 minutes he has
heard his daughter weeping.

26. PW-2 in his chief has stated that
while she was being raped she was
threatened by the accused that if she raise
alarm, she will be killed. She only cried
when the grip of the accused became soft.
While his father came at the place of
occurrence, the accused has already ran
away after wearing his clothes. She has
further stated that prior to the incident, no
one has raped her, neither she is in physical
relationship with anybody. She has also
stated that at the time of the occurrence, her
father was 4-5 meter away. She was not
having any talking terms with family of the
accused. It has been further stated that
blood stained Salwar was taken by the
police after the medical examination and
after one month they were returned to the
victim. She was not aware about the height
of the piled paddy straw on which she was
raped. She was not aware as to after how
much time her father came upon alarm
being raised by her. She has also stated that
after the incident she went with her father's
home and stayed home in the night. On that
night Suneel and his father did not came
there. She has denied suggestion that due to
enmity false implications of the accused
has been done.

27. PW-4 in the cross has stated that
PW-1 has not told him in his statement
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that cause of
delay in lodging F.I.R. was threat extended
by the accused or his family members,
rather he was told that due to late evening,
he did not register the report on the same
day. He has also stated that the clothes of
the prosecutrix have not been taken in his
possession. The place of occurrence was
eight feet in height where the prosecutrix
4 All. Suneet Kumar Vs. State of U.P.
983
was raped. No certificate regarding the age
of the prosecutrix was shown by the family
members of the victim. Perusal of the
statement of PW-1 shows that he is not the
eye witness of the incident. There is no
other independent witness. The medical
report
does
not
corroborates
the
prosecution version.

28. PW-6 Dr. Kalpana Chandra who
has examined the victim has stated that no
opinion can be given regarding rape as the
victim was habitual of sexual intercourse.
Although on the basis of sole testimony of
the victim, the conviction can be sustained,
however, it should be worthy of credence,
thus, the statement of PW-2 have to be
examined keeping in view the fact that
there is no eye witness to the incident.

29. PW-1 has stated that after hearing
alarm of his daughter he ran to the place of
occurrence, he was 100-125 meters away
and during the entire 20 minutes he kept on
hearing alarm, whereas the victim stated
that she raised alarm only when the grip of
the Suneel on her mouth softened.

30. According to PW-2 her father was
4-5 meters away when she was raped,
whereas according to PW-1 he was 100125 paces away. The statement of PW-2
that police has taken her blood stained
salwar in its possession has also been
contradicted by the I.O.

31. From perusal of the statement of
PW-2, although, she has stated that she is
not aware as to what was the height of the
place where she was raped, the I.O. has
clearly stated that it was a pile of paddy
straw of 8 feet in height. PW-1 in his
statement admitted the enmity with the
family of the accused due to the death of
his son who went with the uncle Suresh of
the accused to Punjab. PW-1 has not given
any reason for the delay in lodging F.I.R.
whereas PW-2 has clearly stated that after
the incident PW-2 along with PW-1 came
home and on that date no one from the
accused, his father or from his family
members came to her house.

32. I.O. PW-4 has stated that in the
cross PW-1 has not told him about the
delay in the F.I.R. is due to threat extended
by
the
accused
persons.
He
has
contradicted the statement of PW-2 and has
clearly stated that no clothes of the
prosecutrix were seized. The statement of
the prosecutrix also appears improbable as
in the statement of PW-4, the height of the
place is said to have been 8 feet, whereas
PW-2 has shown ignorance regarding the
height. Although PW-1 is not eye witness,
but, he was present, who has last seen the
accused running away from the place of
occurrence immediately after the rape was
committed.

33. As per the own statement of PW-1
and PW-2, the testimony of the prosecutrix
is contradicted at several places particularly
PW-1 and PW-4. The statement of the
prosecutrix that she only cried when the
grip of the appellant got loos upon her
mouth; while committing rape, he extended
threat to the victim that if she cries she will
be killed. On the contrary PW-1 says that
he heard the alarm for continuous 20
minutes. PW-2 has shown the presence of
PW-1, 4-5 meters away from the place of
occurrence when the rape was committed,
whereas PW-1 has stated that he was 100125 meters away when the rape was being
committed and he took 20 minutes while
running to cover that distance.

34. The testimony of the prosecutrix
that her blood stained Salwar was seized by
984 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the police has also been contradicted by the
I.O. in his statement who has denied any
such seizure. Again the ignorance shown
by the prosecutrix that she is not aware as
to what was the height of the place where
she was raped, does not inspire confidence
in face of the statement given by the PW-4
that the place of occurrence was 8 feet in
height. It appears quite improbable to
commit offence of rape by dragging victim
upon a place which is 8 feet high and still
the victim has not suffered any contusion or
abrasion.

35. So far as the age of the
prosecutrix as per the medical statement of
PW-5, the victim could have been 18 years
at the time of occurrence. This Court has
taken notice as while giving statement of
PW-1 examination-in-chief has brought
transfer certificate dated 20.03.2002 and
has filed it in the trial court. The trial court
while convicting the accused has also
placed reliance on this document which
could not have been done as the same was
not given to the investigation officer who
was conducting the investigation. There is
no compliance of Section 230 Cr.P.C. read
with section 90 Cr.P.C. and therefore, the
document could not have been relied upon
by the trial court for coming to any finding.

36. On the whole, statement of the
prosecutrix does not inspire confidence. In the
offence of rape, the statement of the prosecutrix
is utmost important. The statement of the
prosecutrix should be of sterling quality which
in the present case is absent. On such kind of
shaky testimony of the prosecutrix which is
improbable and contradictory to the statements
of PW-1, PW-3 and PW-4 without there being
any corroborative material or something short
of corroboration, I am of the opinion that
conviction on such type of sole testimony of the
prosecutrix cannot be sustained.

37. 31. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Mohd. Ali @ Guddu vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh (2015) 7 SCC 272 has held as
under:-

"Be it noted, there can be no iota
of doubt that on the basis of the sole
testimony of the prosecutrix, if it is
unimpeachable and beyond reproach, a
conviction can be based. In the case at
hand, the learned Trial Judge as well as the
High Court have persuaded themselves
away
with
this
principle
without
appreciating
the
acceptability
and
reliability of the testimony of the witness. In
fact, it would not be appropriate to say that
whatever the analysis in the impugned
judgment, it would only indicate an
impropriety of approach. The prosecutrix
has deposed that she was taken from one
place to the other and remained at various
houses for almost two months. The only
explanation given by her is that she was
threatened by the accused persons. It is not
in her testimony that she was confined to
one place. In fact, it has been borne out
from the material on record that she had
traveled from place to place and she was
ravished a number of times. Under these
circumstances, the medical evidence gains
significance, for the examining doctor has
categorically deposed that there are no
injuries on the private parts. The delay in
FIR, the non-examination of the witnesses,
the testimony of the prosecutrix, the
associated circumstances and the medical
evidence, leave a mark of doubt to treat the
testimony of the prosecutrix as so natural
and truthful to inspire confidence. It can be
stated with certitude that the evidence of
the prosecutrix is not of such quality which
can be placed reliance upon."

38. In Hem Raj v. State of Haryana,
(2014) 2 SCC 395 it has been held that :-
4 All. Gopal Das & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
985

"10. Faced with such a situation,
we were anxious to find out whether there
can be any clinching medical evidence
suggesting rape, but, unfortunately, the
prosecuton has failed to examine Dr.Anjali
Shah, who had examined the prosecutrix.
The MLR was produced in the Court by
P.W.6 J.B. Bhardwaj, Medical Record
Technician. This is a serious lapse on the
part of the prosecution. We are aware that
lapses on the part of the prosecution should
not lead to unmerited acquittals. This is,
however subject to the rider that in such a
situation the evidence on record must be
clinching so that the lapses of the
prosecution could be condoned. Such is not
the case here. The MLR does suggest that
the hymen of the prosecutrix was torn. It is
also true that the prosecutrix has brought
on record FSL report which shows that
human semen was detected on the salwar of
the prosecutrix and on the underwear of the
accused. However, it is difficult to infer
from this that the prosecutrix was raped by
the appellant. The prosecutrix herself has
vacillated on this aspect. It was pointed out
that no injuries were found on the
prosecutrix. We do not attach much
importance to this aspect because presence
of injures is not a must to prove
commission of rape. But the prosecutrix's
evidence is so infirm that it deserves to be
rejected. Her brother has come out with a
case that the appellant tried to rape the
prosecutrix. He did not say that the
appellant raped the prosecutrix. Taking an
overall view of the matter, we find it
difficult to sustain the prosecution case that
the prosecutrix was raped by the appellant.
This is a case where the appellant must be
given benefit of doubt. "

39. The delay in loding the F.I.R., nonexamination of scribe of the F.I.R., the inconsistent testimony of the prosecutrix,
associated circumstances and uncorroborated
medical evidence cast doubt on the testimony
of the victim which failed to inspire
confidence. The evidence of the prosecutrix
is not of that quality on which the appellant
can be convicted. Law in the regard has been
settled.

40. In view of the settled law, since the
evidence of the prosecutrix PW-2, PW-1 are
contradictory,
the
testimony
of
the
prosecutrix has also been contradicted by the
I.O. she is not a credible witnesses, I find that
the trial court has convicted the accused
merely on conjectures and surmises and
assumptions, the prosecution has failed to
prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The
assumptions have not been corroborated in
any reliable evidence medical does not
support the case of prosecution relating to
rape there is no other corroborative evidence,
I am unable to agree the conclusion arrived at
by the trial court. Accordingly, the judgment
dated 11 .07.2003 passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge (Fat Track Court No. 2),
Raibareli, is set aside. The appellant is
acquitted of all the charges levelled against
him. The appellant is directed to be released
forthwith if he is not required in any other
case.

41. The appeal is accordingly allowed.
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 985
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURENDRA SINGH-I, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1406 of 1995

Gopal Das & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent