# The New India Assurance Co. Ltd v. Smt. Kamla Devi and others

- **Citation:** (2008) 2 ILRA 591
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2008-05-23
- **Case number:** Government Appeal No.2031 of 1981
- **Bench:** M. Chaudhary, K.N. Ojha
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/the-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-v-smt-kamla-devi-and-others-41284
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

592 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
Governments
Appeals-offence
under
Section 302 and 307 I.P.C.-Rejection of
statement of two eyes witnesses on
ground of close relations-testimony of
both witness fully corroborated with
medical
evidence-FIR-can
not
be
rejected-learned
judge
failed
to
appreciate evidence on record-impugned
judgement set-aside.

Held: Para 23,24 & 25

No doubt he sided Janki in litigation
between Ram Lal and Janki but his
testimony stands corroborated by the
testimony of injured witness PW 1 Ram
Bahadur. Testimony of both the eye
witnesses
finds
corroboration
with
medical evidence and F.I.R. of the
occurrence lodged promptly at the police
station without losing any time. Thus
evidence of both the eye witnesses
cannot be rejected even though they
were
close
to
the
deceased
and
inimically disposed towards the accused.
In view of above discussion this Court
arrives at the conclusion that the learned
trial judge failed to appreciate evidence
on the record in its true perspective and
discarded the evidence of two eye
witnesses including one injured. For the
above, the impugned judgement cannot
be sustained in law and is liable to be set
aside.

Government
Appeal
and
Criminal
Revision are, therefore, allowed and
impugned judgement and order passed
by V Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly
acquitting the accused respondents is
set
aside.
Accused
Narain
and
Chhadammi are convicted under sections
302 and 307 each read with section 34
I.P.C. and each of them is sentenced to
undergo imprisonment for life and five
years'
rigorous
imprisonment
respectively
thereunder.
Both
the
sentences shall run concurrently. Both
the accused respondents are in jail. They
shall serve out the sentence imposed
upon them.

## Text

2 All] The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V. Smt. Kamla Devi and others
591
counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant, suffers from misconception.
The Supreme Court has categorically held
that what be "just" compensation is a
vexed question. There can be no golden
rule applicable to all cases for measuring
the value of human life or a limb.
Measure of damages cannot be arrived at
by precise mathematical calculations. It
would depend upon the particular facts
and circumstances, and attending peculiar
or special features, if any. Every method
or
mode
adopted
for
assessing
compensation has to be considered in the
background of "just" compensation which
is the pivotal consideration. The Supreme
Court held that the determination should
be rational, to be done by a judicious
approach and not outcome of whims, wild
guesses and arbitrariness. The gentleman,
who expired in the case before the
Supreme Court, had the agricultural
income as well as business with regard to
milk etc. But the difference between such
case and this case is that there was no
material and the present case there was
some material even being oral evidence
but can not be overlooked. Therefore,
when there is some material available
before the Court, the Court would
construe and come to an appropriate
finding particularly in a situation when
there is no denial or rebuttal. This
distinguishing feature should not be
escaped from the notice of the Court in
arriving at a conclusion.

4. Being so, we cannot interfere with
the judgement and order impugned before
us. Therefore, we are of the view that the
appeal will be treated to be dismissed at
the stage of admission. Accordingly, it
has
been
done,
however,
without
imposing any cost.

5. However, it is open for the
insurance
company
to
make
any
application
for
recovery
of
the
compensation in the tribunal in the self
same proceeding when upon giving notice
and adequate opportunity of hearing
Court will consider the issue either way.
But under no circumstances, the amount
which has been directed to be paid to the
claimants would be stalled.

6. Incidentally, the appellantinsurance company prayed that the
statutory deposit of Rs.25,000/- made
before this Court for preferring this appeal
be remitted back to the concerned Motor
Accidents
Claims
Tribunal
as
expeditiously as possible in order to
adjust the same with the amount of
compensation to be paid to the claimants,
however, such prayer is allowed. Appeal
Dismissed.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.05.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. CHAUDHARY, J.
THE HON'BLE K.N. OJHA, J.

Government Appeal No.2031 of 1981
&
Criminal Revision No.978 of 1981

The State of U.P.

...Appellant
Versus
Narain & others ...Accused Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Amar Jeet Singh
A.G.A.

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri P.C. Jhingan
Sri C.B. Dubey
Sri A.K.S. Bais
592 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
Governments
Appeals-offence
under
Section 302 and 307 I.P.C.-Rejection of
statement of two eyes witnesses on
ground of close relations-testimony of
both witness fully corroborated with
medical
evidence-FIR-can
not
be
rejected-learned
judge
failed
to
appreciate evidence on record-impugned
judgement set-aside.

Held: Para 23,24 & 25

No doubt he sided Janki in litigation
between Ram Lal and Janki but his
testimony stands corroborated by the
testimony of injured witness PW 1 Ram
Bahadur. Testimony of both the eye
witnesses
finds
corroboration
with
medical evidence and F.I.R. of the
occurrence lodged promptly at the police
station without losing any time. Thus
evidence of both the eye witnesses
cannot be rejected even though they
were
close
to
the
deceased
and
inimically disposed towards the accused.
In view of above discussion this Court
arrives at the conclusion that the learned
trial judge failed to appreciate evidence
on the record in its true perspective and
discarded the evidence of two eye
witnesses including one injured. For the
above, the impugned judgement cannot
be sustained in law and is liable to be set
aside.

Government
Appeal
and
Criminal
Revision are, therefore, allowed and
impugned judgement and order passed
by V Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly
acquitting the accused respondents is
set
aside.
Accused
Narain
and
Chhadammi are convicted under sections
302 and 307 each read with section 34
I.P.C. and each of them is sentenced to
undergo imprisonment for life and five
years'
rigorous
imprisonment
respectively
thereunder.
Both
the
sentences shall run concurrently. Both
the accused respondents are in jail. They
shall serve out the sentence imposed
upon them.

(Delivered by Hon'ble K.N. Ojha, J.)

1. This Government appeal has been
preferred from judgement and order dated
6.3.1981 passed by V Additional Sessions
Judge, Bareilly, in S.T. No.432 of 1980
acquitting accused Narain, Chhadammu,
Pyare Lal and Ram Sahai under sections
302 and 307 I.P.C. each read with section
34 I.P.C. Ram Bahadur the first informant
has preferred Criminal Revision No.978
of 1981 from the impugned judgement
aforesaid.

2. Since accused respondents Pyarey
Lal and Ram Sahay were reported having
died, the State appeal filed against them
stood abated vide order dated 6.2.2008.

3. Brief facts of the case giving rise
to this appeal are that Ram Sahay had
three sons Narayan, Chhadammi and
Pyarey Lal and Ram Lal was saru of Ram
Sahay. Ram Bahadur is the son of Het
Ram, and Janki happened to be the uncle
of Ram Bahadur. At about 8.00 A,M. on
24.9.1980 Ram Bahadur alongwith Janki
Prasad was going- to their house from the
Gher and as they reached in front of the
Gher of Ram Sahai accused Ram Sahai
shouted that Janki had removed the
wooden log of his Rahat. Immediately
Janki denied this fact and then at the
exhortation of Ram Sahai his sons Narain,
Chhadammi and Pyarey Lal assaulted
him. Narain and Chhadammi caused
injuries to Janki with knife and Pyarey
Lal with lathis. On the alarm raised by
Ram Bahadur the assailants gave him
lathi blows. Hearing the shrieks of Janki
his nephew Tika Ram, one Lal Karan and
Brij Lal rushed to the scene of occurrence
and as they challenged the assailants they
made their escape good. Thereafter Ram
Bahadur got report of the occurrence
2 All] The State of U.P. V. Narain and others
593
scribed by Brij Pal son of Janki and went
to Police Station Bhamora taking injured
Janki in bullockcart and lodged F.I.R. of
the occurrence on the same day at 11.05
A.M. Both the injured were sent to P.H.C.
Bhamora Hospital for their medical
examination and treatment.

4. Dr. S..S. Rawat medically
examined Janki at 11.45 A.M. the same
day and found following injuries on his
body:

1. A stab wound measuring 3cm x 1cm
not probed to avoid surgical ground.
Wound situated at thoracic 8-9 spine
on back of chest. Fresh blood oozing.
Coarse crepitation present.

2. A stab wound measuring 2cm x 1 cm
just 3.5cm apart to injury No.1
(towards left side) on back of chest,
fresh blood oozing and bubble of
gas.

3. A stab wound 3cm x 1 cm on left side
of back of chest 6cm below injury
No.2. Breath sound absent on
auscultation-left
infra-scapular
region. Fresh blood oozing from
wound. Depth for injury no.2 and 3
not
probed
to
avoid
surgical
complication. Pulse feeble. Patient
gasping unconscious. Margins clean
cut. Life saving drug given.

4. An incised wound 3cm x 0.5cm x skin
deep on front aspect of right forearm
just 3cm above the lower end of right
radius. Fresh blood oozing.

5. An incised wound 5cm x 0.2cm on
front aspect of right arm 1 cm above
the injury no.4. Fresh blood oozing.

6. A lacerated wound size 4cm x 0.5cm
x muscle deep on left side of head,
12cm above the right ear.

5. Margins of injuries no. 1 to 5
were clean cut. Janki expired the same
day at 11.55 A.M. Doctor sent a memo to
Police Station Bhamora. In the doctor's
opinion injury nos. 1 to 3 were grievous
and injury nos. 4 to 6 were simple. Injury
nos. 1 to 5 were caused by some sharp
pointed cutting object and injury nO.6
was by some blunt object and fresh in
duration. He also opined that death was
caused due to thoracic haemorrhage
resulting cardio respiratory failure.

6. The doctor examined Ram
Bahadur also the same day and found
lacerated wound 4cm x 1 cm x muscle
deep on right side of head. Margins were
lacerated and blood was oozing from the
wound. The injury was caused by blunt
object and fresh in duration.

7. Dr. D.S. Gangwar who performed
post mortem on the dead body of
deceased Janki on 25.9.1980 at 11.30 a.m.
found following ante mortem injuries on
the dead, body:

1. Lacerated wound 3.5cm x 0.5 cm x
scalp deep on right side of head 9cm
above right eye brow.
2. Contusion 10cm x 4cm on back of
chest left scapular region.
3. Contusion 12cm x 2cm on left side of
back 12cm below lower end of
scapula.
4. Incised wound (stitched) 9cm x 0.5
cm x cavity deep on left side of back
3cm from midline and 15cm below
root of neck.
594 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
5. Stitched incised wound 1.8cm x
0.5cm x cavity deep left side of back
6cm below injury no.4.
6. Stitched (2) incised wounds 2.5cm x
0.5cm x cavity deep on back of chest
at right side near middle line at the
level of injury no.4.
7. Incised wound 2cm x 1 cm x skin
deep on back of right forearm near
wrist joint.
8. Linear abrasion 6cm long on the
back of right forearm just above
injury no. 7.

On internal examination the doctor
found pleura punctured under injuries nos.
4 and 5 and one litre blood was present in
the cavity.

After completing investigation the
police submitted charge sheet against the
accused.

8. After framing of charge the
prosecution
examined
PW
1
Ram
Bahadur and PW 2 Lal Karan as eyewitnesses of the occurrence. PW 3
Constable Jagdish Singh, PW 4 S.1.
Shyam Singh Sirohi, PW 5 Dr. S.S.
Rawat and PW 6 Dr. D.S. Gangwar were
also examined.

9. Accused-respondents disputed
time, place and manner of occurrence
alleging that occurrence did not take place
near the Gher of accused but it had taken
place at some other place in the early
hours of morning and some unknown
persons might have caused injuries to
Janki. It is also alleged that accused
Narain and Ram Sahai were assaulted by
Ved Ram, Udhao, Hansi and Baljeet on
24.9.1980 at 5.00 A.M. because they were
hurling abuses as two trees were lying cut
in their field and they asked them not to
abuse but they persisted in hurling abuses.
Hearing the shrieks Chaman Lal, Ram Lal
and others appeared there and saved them.
Somebody had injured the victim and the
accused
respondents
were
falsely
implicated in the crime.

10. On an appraisal of evidence on
the record the learned trial judge passed
the impugned judgement acquitting the
accused.
Feeling
aggrieved
by
the
impugned judgement the State preferred
this appeal for redress.

11. Heard Sri Amar Jeet Singh,
learned A.G.A. for the State appellant and
Sri A.K.S. Bais, learned counsel for the
accused respondents. None appeared for
the revisionist. We have gone through the
record.

12. It has been submitted by learned
A.G.A. for the State appellant that the
findings recorded by the trial court are
faulty and perverse as the same are based
on erroneous appreciation of evidence.
Minor variations between the injury
report and post mortem report are of no
significance. Only one injury found on the
body of accused Ram Sahai which was
not proved would not confer right of
private defence to the accused persons to
cause fatal injuries to Janki.

13. Learned counsel for the accused
respondents submitted that there are
material
contradictions
in
ocular
testimony of eye-witnesses and post
mortem examination report. Blood was
not found on the spot by the Investigating
Officer
and
there
are
many
improbabilities in the prosecution version
and therefore, the order of acquittal does
not call for any interference by this Court
and deserves to be confirmed.
2 All] The State of U.P. V. Narain and others
595
14. In this case, two eye-Witnesses
PW 1 Ram Bahadur and PW 2 Lal Karan,
who are resident of the same village, were
examined by the prosecution in its
support. Both of them stated that on
account of litigation the accused were
inimical to them and caused fatal injuries
with knife and lathi to Janki resulting in
his death. Narain and Chhadammi who
are alive are said to be armed with knives
caused fatal injuries to Janki.

15.

Learned
Sessions
Judge
observed that according to the site plan
the victim could go by shorter route from
his gher or field to his house, but he
adopted longer route and normally longer
route is not adopted by a person. On this
ground it has been doubted by learned
trial judge if the incident occurred at the
place alleged by the prosecution. In
village area persons go through more than
one path from his field to his house as the
circumstances require. In instant case the
victim adopted route which was 50 steps
longer in distance than the shorter route.
This distance is not of much significance
as the distance was of only 40-50 steps.

16. The next ground on which the
order of acquittal was passed was that no
fodder cutting machine was found outside
village abadi in the gher of Janki. PW 1
Ram Bahadur has stated that he was
collecting fodder in the gher of Janki
which was being cut on the grass cutting
machine. The old machine which was in
the gher of Janki was later on taken out
from the gher and was fixed near the
house of the victim. The site-plan shows
that there is grass cutting machine of Shiv
Lal near the gher of Janki. Investigating
Officer had shown machine of Janki in his
Khaprail gher and he had two paths to go
to his house one from western side and
another from eastern side. It was in the
eastern side where the occurrence had
taken place. There is statement that after
occurrence, the grass cutting machine was
taken from gher and it was kept at
residence of Janki. Thus the finding of
trial court that there was no possibility of
Janki carrying fodder in front of door of
Ram Sahai is not maintainable.

17. Learned A.G.A. has submitted
that learned Sessions Judge held that
place of occurrence is not proved because
no blood was found on the spot. Learned
A.G.A. submits that injury report as well
as post mortem examination report which
were proved by PW 5 Dr. S.S. Rawat and
PW 6 Dr. D.S. Gangwar show that stab
injuries were caused in which mainly
infra-thoracic haemorrhage did take place
inside the body and blood was found in
the cavity. It was a broad day light
occurrence. The occurrence did take place
on the main pathway. Immediately injured
Janki was taken to the hospital. In such
circumstance there is nothing surprising if
blood was not found on the spot as soon
after
the
occurrence
many
persons
assembled on the spot which was the
main pathway and blood which would
have fallen down at the place of
occurrence would have been trodden due
to assembling of several persons there and
might not have been visible when the
Investigating Officer visited the scene of
occurrence. Moreover a perusal of the
post mortem report goes to show that
pleural cavity contained one litre blood.
Learned A.G.A. submits that there is
minor variations between the injury report
and post mortem report, which would not
be a ground to disbelieve the prosecution
story.
596 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
18. In the injury report the doctor
medically
examining
injured
Janki
mentioned three stabbed wounds and two
incised wounds on chest, back and right
forearm besides a lacerated wound on his
head. However the doctor mentioned in
the injury report that all the five injuries,
three stabbed wounds and two incised
wounds (Injuries no. 1 to 5) were clean
cut. The doctor conducting autopsy on the
dead body mentioned in the post mortem
report that there were four ante mortem
incised wounds on chest, back and
forearm in addition to one lacerated
wound on his head besides two contusions
on back and one linear abrasion on right
forearm. Thus virtually there is no
material difference in the injuries found
on the person of the victim and after his
death on his dead body. In the injury
report as well as in post mortem
examination injuries found were caused
by sharp edged weapon and blunt object
as well. At the time of autopsy the dead
body is minutely examined. It appears at
the time of medical examination of
injured Janki contusion might not have
appeared as sometimes contusion take
time to appear. Under the circumstances
on account of minor variations in the
injuries in both the medical reports,
testimony of two eye witnesses can not be
thrown over board.

19. Learned A.G.A. submits that one
simple lacerated wound on the body of
accused Narain is not sufficient to hold
that injuries were caused in self-defence
resulting in death of Janki. PW 4 S.I.S.S.
Sirohi who investigated the crime found
one lacerated wound on the body of
accused Narain. He stated that there was
bandage on the head of Narain accused.
No F.I.R. was lodged from the side of
accused persons. No doubt, prosecution
has to explain the injuries sustained by the
accused but time of injury sustained by
the accused should correspond to the time
of occurrence in which the persons on the
side of prosecution sustained injuries.
Non-explanation of injury of superfluous
nature on the person of the accused would
not shake the truth of the prosecution
version.
In
A.I.R.2006
SCW
5239
Sukumar Roy Versus State of West Bengal
it has been held by the Apex Court that if
injury of the accused are of minor nature
moreso when neither any injury report by
the doctor was produced nor any doctor
was
examined
by
accused,
nonexplanation of such injury on the body of
accused cannot be a ground to disbelieve
the prosecution story. In instant case the
Investigating Officer had simply seen
bandage on the head of Narain but he was
unable to explain as to what was the
nature of injury and when it was caused
nor the accused came with any explicit
version. Thus plea of the defence that they
caused injuries to Janki resulting in his
death in exercise of right of private
defence falls to the ground.

20. Learned A.G.A. submitted that
Sessions Judge has disbelieved the
statement of PW 1 Ram Bahadur and PW
2 Lal Karan on the ground that they are
interested
witnesses.
In
2008
AIR
Supreme Court Weekly 2319 Tuka Ram
versus State of Karnataka it has been held
by
Hon'ble
the
Apex
Court
that
"Relationship is not a factor to affect
credibility of a witness. It is more often
than not that a relation would not conceal
actual culprit and make allegations
against an innocent person. Foundation
has to be laid if a plea of false implication
is made. In such cases, the Court has to
adopt a careful approach and analyze
evidence to find out whether it is cogent
2 All] The State of U.P. V. Narain and others
597
and credible. The ground that the witness
being a close relative and consequently
being a partisan witness, should no be
relied upon, has no substance."

21. In AIR 1953 Supreme Court 364
Dalip Singh Versus State of Punjab it has
been held by Hon'ble the Apex Court that,

"A witness is normally to be
considered independent unless he or she
springs from sources which are likely to
be tainted and that usually means unless
the witness has cause, such as enmity
against the accused, to wish to implicate
him falsely. Ordinarily a close relation
would be the last to screen the real culprit
and falsely implicate an innocent person.
It is true, when feelings run high and
there is personal cause for enmity, that
there is a tendency to drag in an innocent
person against whom a witness has a
grudge along with the guilty, but
foundation must be laid for such a
criticism and the mere fact of relationship
far from being a foundation is often a sure
guarantee of truth. However, we are not
attempting any sweeping generalization.
Each case must be judged on its own
facts. Our observations are only made to
combat what is so often put forward in
cases before us as a general rule. Each
case must be limited to and be governed
by its own facts."

22. In 1974(3) SCC 698 Guli Chand
Versus State of Rajasthan and AIR 1957 SC
614
Vadiveluthewar
versus
State
of
Madhya Pradesh the same principle as has
been observed in Dalip Singh's case, has
been laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court.

In AIR 1965 Supreme Court 202
Masalti and others versus State of U.P. it
was held by Hon'ble the Apex Court that;
"But
it
would,
we
think,
be
unreasonable to contend that evidence
given by witnesses should be discarded
only on the ground that it is evidence of
partisan or interested witnesses.....The
mechanical rejection of such evidence on
the sole ground that it is partisan would
invariably lead to failure of justice."

The same principle was laid down in
AIR 1973 Supreme Court 2407 State of
Punjab
Versus
Jagir
Singh,
2002(3)
Supreme Court 76 Lehana Singh versus
State of Haryana and 2002(8) Supreme
Court Cases 381 Gangadhar Behera Versus
State of Orisa, 2005 (10) Supreme Court
Cases 404 Babu Lal Bhagwan Versus State
of Maharashtra.

23. Thus in instant case it is to be
ascertained as to whether PW 1 Ram
Bahadur and PW 2 Lal Karan are
interested witnesses and their testimony
deserves to be believed or discarded. It
has come in evidence that Janki, the
deceased was not real uncle of Ram
Bahadur and he used to call him uncle on
account of village relations. Sworn
testimony of a witness cannot be
discarded merely on the ground that he is
either a partisan or closely related to the
deceased if it is otherwise found to be
trustworthy and credible. It only requires
scrutiny with care and caution. On careful
scrutiny, if the evidence is found to be
reliable and trustworthy if can be acted
upon and if it is found to be improbable or
suspicious it should be rejected. In the
instant case PW 1 Ram Bahadur was
subjected to long and searching crossexamination but nothing tangible could be
elicited to render his testimony doubtful.
Soon after the occurrence he arranged a
bullock cart and took injured Janki therein
to the police station situate at a distance of
598 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
six miles from the village and handed
over written report of the occurrence to
the police there at 11.15 a.m. and then the
injured was sent to the hospital where he
was medically examined at 11.45 noon.
PW 1 Ram Bahadur is an injured witness
who sustained injury at his scalp which
cannot be self-inflicted. Thus his presence
at the scene of occurrence cannot. be
doubted. Likewise PW 2 Lal Karan stated
that he was cutting fodder in his field
which is near the pathway where the
occurrence took place. On the shrieks of
the victim he rushed to the spot and
witnessed the occurrence. Site plan which
was prepared and proved by Investigating
Officer shows that the field of Lal Karan
where he was cutting fodder was situate
near the scene of occurrence. He too was
subjected to searching and gruelling
cross-examination but his testimony was
intact on material particulars of the case.
No doubt he sided Janki in litigation
between Ram Lal and Janki but his
testimony stands corroborated by the
testimony of injured witness PW 1 Ram
Bahadur. Testimony of both the eye
witnesses
finds
corroboration
with
medical evidence and F.I.R. of the
occurrence lodged promptly at the police
station without losing any time. Thus
evidence of both the eye witnesses cannot
be rejected even though they were close
to the deceased and inimically disposed
towards the accused.

24. In view of above discussion this
Court arrives at the conclusion that the
learned trial judge failed to appreciate
evidence on the record in its true
perspective and discarded the evidence of
two eye witnesses including one injured.
For the above, the impugned judgement
cannot be sustained in law and is liable to
be set aside.
25.

Government
Appeal
and
Criminal Revision are, therefore, allowed
and impugned judgement and order
passed by V Additional Sessions Judge,
Bareilly
acquitting
the
accused
respondents is set aside. Accused Narain
and Chhadammi are convicted under
sections 302 and 307 each read with
section 34 I.P.C. and each of them is
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for
life and five years' rigorous imprisonment
respectively
thereunder.
Both
the
sentences shall run concurrently. Both the
accused respondents are in jail. They shall
serve out the sentence imposed upon
them.

26. Office is directed to send copy
of the judgement and record of the lower
court to the court below immediately for
necessary compliance.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.05.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE BARKAT ALI ZAIDI, J.

Criminal Jail Appeal No.2841 of 2005

Shahid

...Accused-Appellant
Versus
State of U.P.

...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Shiv Shanker Yadav
(Amicus Curiae)

Counsel for the Respondent:
A.G.A.

Narcotic
Drugs
and
Psychotropic
Substance
Act
1985-Section
20
(B)(ii)(b)-sentence for small quantity of
smack 200 gms.-maximum punishment 6
months and fine of Rs.10,000/- recover