# Trilok Ram & Anr v. State

- **Citation:** (2025) 12 ILRA 82
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-12-08
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1150 of 1988
- **Bench:** Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/trilok-ram-anr-v-state-52936
- **Pages:** 3

## Text

82 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
find any plausible reason appended by the
learned Trial Court as to why the maximum
punishment of life imprisonment had been
awarded to the appellants in this present
case. No doubt, the crime committed is one
of the most heinous crime and does not
calls for any leniency, keeping in view that
notwithstanding the stringent law, dowry
death is rampant and it refuses to recede,
even after four decades it was enacted.

45. However, this Court besides its role
to set an example for the society is to also
strike a balance with the right of the individual
convict and his apparent responsibilities. It has
come on record, by virtue of the custody
certificate, filed on records that the convict has
already spent more than 15 years and eight
months (18 years and 7 months, including
remission) in jail, though Section 304B of the
I.P.C. prescribes a minimum punishment of 7
years only. The appellant no.1, who was the
father of the appellant no.2 has since been
deceased during the pendency of the present
Appeal. It has also come on record that the
appellant no.2 has an old mother and a young
girl child of marriageable age, born out of the
wedlock with the deceased to support.

46. Thus, keeping in view the totality of
the facts and considering the balance sheet of
aggravating and mitigating circumstances and
there being no criminal background and
adverse history against the convict/appellant
no.2- Umesh, we consider that the ends of
justice would be met in this case, if the
maximum sentence of life under Section 304B
of the I.P.C is reduced to the period already
undergone, i.e. actual sentence of 15 years and
8 months. However, the sentence under
Section 498A I.P.C., and Section 4 Dowry
Prohibition Act, including the fine amount
imposed shall remain unaltered.

CONCLUSION

47. As sequel to the above, the present
appeal as far as the appellant no.1 (Paras Nath
Sahu) is concerned stands abated and as far as
the appellant no.2 (Umesh) is concerned is
dismissed on the point of conviction under
Sections 304B, 498A of the I.P.C. read with
Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act;
however, on the point of sentence, the Appeal
is partly allowed to the extent of sentence of
15 years and 8 months, i.e. the period already
undergone.

48. However, the entire amount of fine
awarded by the Trial Court shall be deposited
by the appellant, within four weeks from the
date of his release, in default, he shall be liable
to
undergo
the
same
punishment
of
imprisonment, as the learned Trial Court has
awarded.

49. Having said so, it is directed that the
appellant- Umesh may be released forthwith,
having already undergone the sentence of
punishment under the present Sessions Trial
No. 273 of 2009 (State Vs. Paras Nath Sahu
and another) arising out of Crime No. 143 of
2008, if he is not needed in any other case(s).

50. There shall be no order as to
cost(s).
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 82
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MS. NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1150 of 1988

Trilok Ram & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
State ...Respondent

Issue for consideration
12 All. Trilok Ram & Anr. Vs. State
83
Validity of realisation warrant if accused are
acquitted.

Headnotes
Code of Criminal Procedure Code-sec 499Impugned order was passed to realize the
penalty issuing the realization warrant-Appeal
u/s 499 Cr.P.C.- defaulter accused Rais has
already been acquitted-as the main accused has
been acquitted-the penalty imposed on the
appellants is hereby waived off.
Appeal allowed.(E-9)

Case Law Cited
Nil

List of Acts
Code of Criminal Procedure Code

List of Keywords
realization warrant

Appearances of parties
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Shamimul Hasnain
Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.G.A.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha
Shukla, J.)

None has appeared for the appellant.
Mr. Ratan Singh, Learned AGA-I for the
State is present.

The present appeal has been filed
under Section 449 Cr.P.C. against the
judgement and order dated 11.04.1985
passed by Additional Sessions Judge,
Muzafarnagar in Criminal Misc. Case No.
18/86 (State v. Amar Singh and others)
under Section 446 Cr.P.C.

The
present
criminal
appeal
pertains to the year 1988 and is listed
today under the caption of "Oldest
Pending Cases In This High Court For
Priority Hearing."

At the very outset, learned AGA for
the State submits that the instant appeal has
merit as the main accused Rais S/o
Hakimuddin in Sessions Trial No. 69 of
1986 (State v. Munavvar and others) tried
under Sections 395/397 IPC, PS-Kandhla,
District-Muzaffarnagar has been acquitted
on 08.12.1987 by the learned First
Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar.

With the assistance of the learned
AGA and from the perusal of the records, it
transpires that the proceedings under
Section 446 Cr.P.C. was initiated against
the appellants (sureties) as the accused Rais
committed a default in not attending the
Court and a show-cause notice was issued
to the surety to an amount of Rs. 5,000/-
each which was to be realized from them as
penalty. As the appellants did not appear on
the date fixed despite the personal service,
the impugned order dated 06.02.1987 was
passed to realize the penalty issuing the
realization warrant.

Aggrieved by the order of realization
warrant, the instant appeal has been
preferred by the appellants under Section
449 Cr.P.C.

Accordingly, the Court is convinced
that the defaulter accused Rais has already
been acquitted vide order dated 08.12.1987
passed by first Additional Sessions Judge,
Muzaffarnagar
acquitting
the
accused
Munavvar and Rais of a charge under
Section 395 IPC framed against them and
the his surety bond and a personal bond has
been cancelled.

As the main accused has been
acquitted, the penalty imposed on the
appellants is hereby waived off.

Accordingly, the criminal appeal filed
under Section 449 Cr.P.C., is hereby
allowed.
84 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 84
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SALIL KUMAR RAI, J.
THE HON'BLE VINAI KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1529 of 1989

Bhola ...Appellant
Versus
State ...Respondent

Issue for consideration
Delay in Test Identification Parade

Headnotes
Test Identification Parade-only on the
ground of test identification parade- even after
delay of more than two months- accusedappellant could not be held guilty for the
commission of the heinous crime like murder.
Appeal allowed.(E-9)

Case Law Cited
1.Harinath and another Vs. State of U.P., (1988)
1 SCC 14

List of Acts
Indian Penal Code, 1860

List of Keywords
Test Identification Parade, heinous crime, delay

Appearances of parties
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Akhilesh Tripathi,
Sanjeeva Kumar Yadava
Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.G.A.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vinai Kumar
Dwivedi, J.)

1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed
against the judgment and order dated
10.07.1989 passed by Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Gyanpur, Varanasi in
Session Trial No. 37 of 1982 arising out of
Case Crime No. 52 of 1981, under Sections
147, 148, 149, 302, 120B IPC, police
station Gyanpur, district Varanasi. By the
impugned order, the Additional Sessions
Judge has acquitted the accused Brahm
Shankar, Vijay Shankar, Nirahoo and
Awadh Narain and has convicted and
sentenced the accused-appellant Bhola to
life imprisonment under section 302 IPC.
Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated
10.07.1989 by which the accused-appellant
Bhola was convicted under Section 302
IPC, he filed the instant criminal appeal
challenging the aforesaid judgment and
order dated 10.07.1989.

2. In short compass, the facts of the
case are that on 27.05.1981, a written
report was given to the Inspector, Police
Station Gyanpur, District Varanasi by PW1 Lalmani Dubey alleging inter alia that
there was enmity between him and Brahm
Shankar @ Bechu. Due to old enmity,
Brahm Shankar @ Bechu and Vijay
Shankar
@
Mothai
alongwith
three
unknown persons came at his house from
the North keeping lathi, danda and countrymade pistol and attacked his cousin Aadhya
Prasad and nephew Faujdar, who were
sleeping at the door, by lathi-danda. The
unknown person who wore kurta paijama
fired from the country-made pistol upon his
nephew Rakesh Kumar, who was also
sleeping on the cot, which hit his chest and
the blood started oozing. On hearing the
noise of the fire-shot and screaming, he and
Aadhya Prasad, Faujdar and younger
brother
Chaturgun
and
neighbours
Phoolchandra Dubey, Shivshankar and
Jayshankar and many people of the locality
came at the spot. On seeing the aforesaid
persons, the culprits ran towards the East
direction. The complainant alongwith the
persons gathered at the spot identified the
accused persons Brahm Shankar and Vijay