# Vikram Singh Saini @ Vikram Saini v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2022) 12 ILRA 1061
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-11-22
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 8461 of 2022
- **Bench:** Samit Gopal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vikram-singh-saini-vikram-saini-v-state-of-u-p-47990
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Criminal Law- Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973- Section 374(2)- Representation of
People Act, 1951- Section 8-Suspension of
Sentence-The disqualification of a person
under sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of
Section 8 of the Act, 1951 is due to a
conviction for one of the offences as
mentioned in the section- In the present
case the maximum punishment awarded
to the appellant-accused is of two years
imprisonment
which
results
in
his
disqualification as per Section 8 (3) of the
Act, 1951- The law as is continuously
being held, reiterated and referred too (sic
'to') is that powers of suspension of
conviction should be exercised in rare
cases only- Section 8 of the Act, 1951
stipulates
the
disqualification
on
conviction for certain offences - Merely by
pleading that appellant by the conviction
will stand disqualified as per the Act, 1951
is no ground to suspend the conviction.

Where the conviction by the trial court has
resulted in the disqualification of the accused,
then the said conviction cannot be stayed by
merely adopting the plea of disqualification as
the power to stay the conviction is to be
exercised only in rare cases.

Criminal Appeal rejected. (E-3) (Para
18,19,20)

Case Law/ Judgements relied upon:-

## Text

12 All. Vikram Singh Saini @ Vikaram Saini Vs. State of U.P.
1061
opportunity of reformation in order to bring
them in the social stream.

24. Since the learned counsel for the
appellant has later not pressed the appeal
on merit, however, after perusal of entire
evidence on record and judgment of the
trial court, we consider that the appeal is
required to be partly allowed.

25. As discussed above, 'reformative
theory of punishment' is to be adopted and
for that reason, it is necessary to impose
punishment keeping in view the 'doctrine of
proportionality'. It appears from perusal of
impugned judgment that sentence awarded
by learned trial court for life term is very
harsh keeping in view the entirety of facts
and circumstances of the case and gravity
of offence. Hon'ble Apex Court, as
discussed above, has held that undue
harshness should be avoided taking into
account
the
reformative
approach
underlying in criminal justice system.

26. On the overall scrutiny of the facts
and circumstances of the case coupled with
medical evidence and the opinion of the
Medical Officer and considering the principles
laid down by the Courts in above referred case
laws, we are of the considered opinion that in
the case at hand, the offence would be
punishable under Section 304 (Part-I) of IPC.

Punishment:

27. The accused is in jail since 22.9.2018.
The Apex Court in such cases has converted the
conviction under Section 302 of I.P.C. to under
Section 304 Part I of I.P.C. which will come to
the aid of the accused-appellant.

28. In view of the aforementioned
discussion, we are of the view that the
appeal has to be partly allowed, hence,
appeal is partly allowed.

29. The punishment under Sections 354
IPC cannot be sustained. The punishment under
Section 452 IPC cannot be sustained as no
ingredients are proved and judgment qua the
said is upturned. Offence under Section 302
IPC is converted into Section 304 Part-I IPC
and 7 years rigorous imprisonment is awarded.
The compensation from Rs. 5 Lacs as fine is
reduced to Rs. 3 Lacs which would be
compensation under Section 354 to be paid to
the legal heirs of the deceased. Appellant shall
undergo one and half year simple imprisonment
in case of default of fine.

30. Record and proceedings be sent
back to the Court below forthwith. The fine
if he has yet not deposited, will deposit
same within four weeks from the date of
release from jail. The jail authority shall see
that the accused-appellant is lodged in the
jail to re-incarcerate for the default period
if fine is not paid after he is released.

31. Let a copy of this judgment along
with the trial court record be sent to the Court
and Jail Authorities concerned for compliance.

32. This Court is thankful to learned
Advocates for ably assisting the Court.
----------
(2022) 12 ILRA 1061
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.11.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 8461 of 2022

Vikram Singh Saini @ Vikram Saini
 ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
1062 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Sri Aditya Upadhyay, Sri I.K. Chaturvedi, Sr.
Advocate

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A.

Criminal Law- Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973- Section 374(2)- Representation of
People Act, 1951- Section 8-Suspension of
Sentence-The disqualification of a person
under sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of
Section 8 of the Act, 1951 is due to a
conviction for one of the offences as
mentioned in the section- In the present
case the maximum punishment awarded
to the appellant-accused is of two years
imprisonment
which
results
in
his
disqualification as per Section 8 (3) of the
Act, 1951- The law as is continuously
being held, reiterated and referred too (sic
'to') is that powers of suspension of
conviction should be exercised in rare
cases only- Section 8 of the Act, 1951
stipulates
the
disqualification
on
conviction for certain offences - Merely by
pleading that appellant by the conviction
will stand disqualified as per the Act, 1951
is no ground to suspend the conviction.

Where the conviction by the trial court has
resulted in the disqualification of the accused,
then the said conviction cannot be stayed by
merely adopting the plea of disqualification as
the power to stay the conviction is to be
exercised only in rare cases.

Criminal Appeal rejected. (E-3) (Para
18,19,20)

Case Law/ Judgements relied upon:-

1. Navjot Singh Sidhu Vs St. of Pun. & anr.;
Appeal (Crl) No. 59 of 2007

2. Shakuntala Khatik Vs St. M.P. ; Crl. Appeal
No. 10870 of 2019 (cited)

3. Ravikant S. Patil Vs Sarvabhouma S. Bagali :
(2007) 1 SCC 673

4. Shyam Narain Pandey Vs St. U.P.: (2014) 8
SCC 909
5. Lok Prahari Vs Election Commission of India :
(2018) 18 SCC 114

(Delivered by Hon'ble Samit Gopal, J.)

Order on Crl. Misc. Suspension of
Order of Conviction Application No. 3 of
2022 dated 18.11.2022

1. Heard Sri I.K. Chaturvedi, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Aditya
Upadhyay,
learned
counsel
for
the
appellant/applicant
and
Sri
Ankit
Srivastava, learned brief holder for the
State of U.P. and perused the record.

2. The Suspension of Order of
Conviction Application No. 3 of 2022 has
been filed by the appellant-Vikram Singh
Saini@ Vikram Saini with the following
prayers:-

"It is therefore most respectfully
prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be
pleased to suspend/stay the order of
conviction dated 11.10.2022 passed by
Addl. District and Sessions Judge/Special
Judge
MP/MLA
Court,
Court
No.4,
Muzaffar Nagar in S.T. No. 1172/2015
(State of U.P. Vs. Dharamveer and others)
arising out of case crime no. 407 of 2013,
under section 147, 148, 149, 307, 336, 353,
186, 504, 506 IPC and section 7 of Crl.
L.A. Act, P.S. Jansath, Muzaffar Nagar,
during pendency of present appeal before
this Hon'ble Court.

or pass any such order/or further
order which this Hon'ble Court deems fit
and proper otherwise the appellant shall
suffer an irreparable loss."

3. The appeal has been preferred by
the appellant under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C.
against the judgement and order dated
11.10.2022 passed by the Additional
12 All. Vikram Singh Saini @ Vikaram Saini Vs. State of U.P.
1063
District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge
MP/MLA Court, Court No. 4, Muzaffar
Nagar, in Sessions Trial No. 1172 of 2015
(State of U.P. vs. Dharmveer and others)
Case Crime No. 407 of 2013, P.S.- Jansath,
District Muzaffar Nagar, whereby the
appellant has been convicted and sentenced
for the offence under Section 147 I.P.C. to
undergo 01 year imprisonment, under
Section 148 I.P.C. to undergo two years
imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000/-, and in
default of payment of fine to 02 months
additional
imprisonment
and
under
Sections 336 r/w 149 I.P.C. to undergo 02
months imprisonment, under Section 353
I.P.C. to undergo 01 month imprisonment,
under Section 504 I.P.C. to undergo 01 year
imprisonment, under Section 506 I.P.C. to
undergo 02 years imprisonment with fine of
Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine
to
undergo
02
months
additional
imprisonment and under Section 7 Criminal
Law (Amendment) Act to undergo 06
months imprisonment. Set off under
Section 428 Cr.P.C. has been given. All
sentences have been ordered to run
concurrently.

4. The said appeal has been admitted
and the lower court records have been
summoned vide order dated 18.11.2022.
The prayer for bail/suspension of sentence
has been allowed and the appellant has
been directed to be released on bail in the
said matter. Subsequently, the present
application has been filed with the prayers
as quoted above.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant
argued while placing para 6 of the affidavit
in support of application for suspension of
order of conviction that the appellant was
convicted merely on the basis of witnesses
who were police personnels. While placing
para 8 of the said affidavit it is argued that
the appellant is one of the reputed leaders
of Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP). Further,
while placing para 13 of the said affidavit it
is argued that the appellant enjoys the
majority of voters from his constituency.
The general public from his constituency
have shown their faith upon appellant twice
and elected him M.L.A. in two terms from
the same constituency, hence in the interest
of general public, execution of order of
conviction is liable to be stayed by this
Court.

6. It is further argued that the
appellant has been falsely implicated in the
present case at the behest of political
persons of the then ruling Samajwadi Party.
It is further argued while placing para 30 of
the said affidavit that the appellant was a
sitting
M.L.A.
from
Assembly
Constituency-15,
Khatauli,
Muazaffar
Nagar. The appellant has been disqualified
by the Principal Secretary in compliance of
a letter issued by the Election Commission.
It is further argued while placing para 31 of
the said affidavit that subsequently the
Election Commission of India vide press
note dated 08.11.2022 has issued the
schedule for by-elections in 15-Khatauli
Assembly Constituency of Uttar Pradesh
and 05.12.2022 has been fixed as the date
of polling. It is further argued that the
maximum
sentence
awarded
to
the
appellant is of two years and as such he has
been disqualified. Learned counsel has
placed before the Court the following
judgments to buttress his submissions:-

(i) Navjot Singh Sidhu Vs. State of
Punjab and another ; Appeal (Crl) No.
59 of 2007 ; Paragraph no. 3.

(ii) Shakuntala Khatik Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh ; Crl. Appeal No. 10870
of 2019 ; Paragraph no. 10 to 12 ;
1064 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(decided
on
23.09.2020)
(Madhya
Pradesh High Court).

7. It is further argued that in both the
cases, the Courts have held that if accused
suffers loss which is irreparable the Court
can suspend the order of conviction. It is
argued that as such looking to the facts and
circumstances, the order of conviction
deserves to be stayed.

8. Per contra, learned brief holder for
the State vehemently opposed the prayer
for staying of conviction. It is argued that
the appellant has been convicted after a full
trial. He has been proved guilty. The case
now is not of the stage of any prima-facie
involvement of the appellant. Evidence has
been led against him which has been found
to be trustworthy and reliable after which
the trial court has convicted him. It is
further argued that in so far as the judgment
in the case of Navjot Singh Sidhu (supra)
is concerned, the same is distinguishable on
the facts as the Apex Court had extended
the benefit of Section 8(4) of the
Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951 to
the appellant therein. The said section has
been subsequently declared ultra-virus by
the Apex Court and even on facts the said
case stands on a different footing. It is
argued that there is no exceptional
circumstance made out by the appellant so
as to warrant stay on the conviction. The
present application is devoid of any merit
and be dismissed.

9. After having heard learned counsels
for the parties and perusing the records, it is
evident that the appellant has been
convicted by the trial court for a maximum
sentence of two years. The ground as taken
for the prayer for suspension of conviction
is that the appellant is a politician and was
involved because of the political rivalry
between two political parties, the appellant
is allowed by the public constituency and
the Election Commission has declared the
schedule
for
by-elections
in
his
constituency and as such the application for
suspension of sentence be allowed.

10. The grounds as taken do not in
any manner appeal to the Court. There is
full-fledged trial conducted after which the
appellant has been convicted. The trial
court has found the evidence to be
trustworthy and reliable.

11. Section 8 of the Representation of
People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as
the "Act, 1951") reads as under:

"8. Disqualification on conviction for
certain offences.--(1) A person convicted of
an offence punishable under--

(a)
Section
153-A
(offence
of
promoting enmity between different groups
on ground of religion, race, place of birth,
residence, language, etc., and doing acts
prejudicial to maintenance of harmony) or
Section 171-E (offence of bribery) or
Section 171-F (offence of undue influence
or personation at an election) or subsection (1) or sub-section (2) of Section 376
or Section 376-A or Section 376-B or
Section 376-C or Section 376-D (offences
relating to rape) or Section 498-A (offence
of cruelty towards a woman by husband or
relative of a husband) or sub-section (2) or
sub-section (3) of Section 505 (offence of
making statement creating or promoting
enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes or
offence relating to such statement in any
place of worship or in any assembly
engaged in the performance of religious
worship or religious ceremonies) of the
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860); or

(b) the Protection of Civil Rights Act,
1955 (22 of 1955), which provides for
12 All. Vikram Singh Saini @ Vikaram Saini Vs. State of U.P.
1065
punishment for the preaching and practice
of
"untouchability",
and
for
the
enforcement of any disability arising
therefrom; or

(c) Section 11 (offence of importing or
exporting prohibited goods) of the Customs
Act, 1962 (52 of 1962); or

(d) Sections 10 to 12 (offence of being
a member of an association declared
unlawful, offence relating to dealing with
funds of an unlawful association or offence
relating to contravention of an order made
in respect of a notified place) of the
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967
(37 of 1967); or

(e) the Foreign Exchange (Regulation)
Act, 1973 (46 of 1973); or

(f)
the
Narcotic
Drugs
and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of
1985); or

(g) Section 3 (offence of committing
terrorist acts) or Section 4 (offence of
committing disruptive activities) of the
Terrorist
and
Disruptive
Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1987 (28 of 1987); or

(h) Section 7 (offence of contravention
of the provisions of Sections 3 to 6) of the
Religious
Institutions
(Prevention
of
Misuse) Act, 1988 (41 of 1988); or
(i) Section 125 (offence of promoting
enmity between classes in connection with
the election) or Section 135 (offence of
removal of ballot papers from polling
stations) or Section 135-A (offence of booth
capturing) or clause (a) of sub-section (2)
of Section 136 (offence of fraudulently
defacing or fraudulently destroying any
nomination paper) of this Act,

(j) Section 6 (offence of conversion of
a place of worship) of the Places of
Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991,

(k) Section 2 (offence of insulting the
Indian National Flag or the Constitution of
India) or Section 3 (offence of preventing
singing of National Anthem) of the
Prevention of Insults to National Honour
Act, 1971 (69 of 1971)

(l)
the
Commission
of
Sati
(Prevention) Act, 1987 (3 of 1988); or

(m) the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 (49 of 1988); or

(n) the Prevention of Terrorism Act,
2002 (15 of 2002);

shall be disqualified, where the
convicted person is sentenced to--

(i) only fine, for a period of six years
from the date of such conviction;

(ii) imprisonment, from the date of
such conviction and shall continue to be
disqualified for a further period of six years
since his release.]

(2) A person convicted for the
contravention of--

(a)
any
law
providing
for
the
prevention of hoarding or profiteering; or

(b) any law relating to the adulteration
of food or drugs; or

(c) any provisions of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, [1961 (28 of 1961)];

and sentenced to imprisonment for not
less than six months, shall be disqualified
from the date of such conviction and shall
continue to be disqualified for a further
period of six years since his release.

(3) A person convicted of any offence
and sentenced to imprisonment for not less
than two years [other than any offence
referred to in sub-section (1) or sub- section
(2)] shall be disqualified from the date of such
conviction
and
shall
continue
to
be
disqualified for a further period of six years
since his release.

12. The disqualification of a person under
sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 8 of the
Act, 1951 is due to a conviction for one of the
offences as mentioned in the section.

13. In the present case the maximum
punishment awarded to the appellant-
1066 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
accused is of two years imprisonment
which results in his disqualification as per
Section 8 (3) of the Act, 1951.

14. The law with regards to
suspension of conviction is well settled.
The Apex Court has ruled, reiterated and
discussed the same in a catena of
judgments. Some of them are:

a) Ravikant S. Patil v. Sarvabhouma S.
Bagali : (2007) 1 SCC 673,

b) Navjot Singh Sidhu v. State of
Punjab : (2007) 2 SCC 574,

c) Shyam Narain Pandey v. State of
Uttar Pradesh : (2014) 8 SCC 909 and

d)
Lok
Prahari
v.
Election
Commission of India : (2018) 18 SCC 114.

15. In the case of Ravikant S. Patil
(supra) it was held that an order granting
stay of conviction is not the rule but is an
exception to be resorted to in rare cases. It
has been held in para 15 as follows:

"15. It deserves to be clarified that an
order granting stay of conviction is not the
rule but is an exception to be resorted to in
rare cases depending upon the facts of a
case. Where the execution of the sentence is
stayed, the conviction continues to operate.
But where the conviction itself is stayed, the
effect is that the conviction will not be
operative from the date of stay. An order of
stay, of course, does not render the
conviction non-existent, but only nonoperative. Be that as it may. Insofar as the
present case is concerned, an application
was filed specifically seeking stay of the
order
of
conviction
specifying
the
consequences if conviction was not stayed,
that
is,
the
appellant
would
incur
disqualification to contest the election. The
High Court after considering the special
reason, granted the order staying the
conviction. As the conviction itself is stayed
in contrast to a stay of execution of the
sentence, it is not possible to accept the
contention of the respondent that the
disqualification arising out of conviction
continues to operate even after stay of
conviction."

(empasis supplied)

Further relying in the cases of
Gajanan, K.C.Sareen and Atar Singh the
Apex Court reiterated the same proposition
in para 16.4 which is as under:

"16.4. Lastly, reference may also be
made to the decision of this Court in State
of Maharashtra v. Gajanan : (2003) 12
SCC 432. In the said case, relying on K.C.
Sareen : (2001) 6 SCC 584 it was reiterated
that only in exceptional cases, the court
should exercise the power of stay of
conviction. Since the High Court in the said
case had not pointed out any exceptional
fact or looked into the ramification of
keeping such conviction in abeyance, the
order of the High Court staying the
conviction was set aside. In the cited case
of Union of India v. Atar Singh : (2003) 12
SCC 434 it was noted that the High Court
had mechanically passed the order by
suspending
the
conviction
and
the
discretion ought not to have been exercised
by the High Court by passing such an order
suspending the conviction."

16. Further the Apex Court in the case
of Navjot Singh Sidhu (supra) has held
that grant of stay of conviction can be
resorted to in rare cases. In Para 6 it has
been held has follows:

"6. The legal position is, therefore,
clear that an appellate court can suspend
or grant stay of order of conviction. But the
person seeking stay of conviction should
12 All. Vikram Singh Saini @ Vikaram Saini Vs. State of U.P.
1067
specifically draw the attention of the
appellate court to the consequences that
may arise if the conviction is not stayed.
Unless the attention of the court is drawn
to the specific consequences that would
follow on account of the conviction, the
person convicted cannot obtain an order of
stay of conviction. Further, grant of stay of
conviction can be resorted to in rare cases
depending upon the special facts of the
case."

(emphasis supplied)

17. The Apex Court in the case of
Shyam Narain Pandey (supra) has while
referring to the case of Balakrishna
Dattatrya Kumbhar held that loss of public
employment / promotion prospects are not
at
all
a
relevant
consideration
for
suspension of conviction. Para 9 and 11 of
the judgment reads as follows:

"9. In State of Maharashtra v.
Balakrishna Dattatrya Kumbhar : (2012)
12 SCC 384 referring also to the two
decisions cited above, it has been held at
para 15 that: (SCC p. 389)

"15. ... the appellate court in an
exceptional case, may put the conviction in
abeyance along with the sentence, but such
power must be exercised with great
circumspection
and
caution,
for
the
purpose of which, the applicant must satisfy
the court as regards the evil that is likely to
befall him, if the said conviction is not
suspended. The court has to consider all
the facts as are pleaded by the applicant, in
a judicious manner and examine whether
the facts and circumstances involved in the
case are such, that they warrant such a
course
of
action
by
it. The
court
additionally, must record in writing, its
reasons for granting such relief. Relief of
staying the order of conviction cannot be
granted only on the ground that an
employee may lose his job, if the same is
not done.""

(emphasis supplied)

*******************************
**

"11. In the light of the principles stated
above, the contention that the appellant
will be deprived of his source of livelihood
if the conviction is not stayed cannot be
appreciated. For the appellant, it is a
matter of deprivation of livelihood but he is
convicted for deprivation of life of another
person. Until he is otherwise declared
innocent in appeal, the stain stands. The
High Court has discussed in detail the
background of the appellant, the nature of
the crime, manner in which it was
committed, etc. and has rightly held that it
is not a very rare and exceptional case for
staying the conviction."

(emphasis supplied)

18. The Apex Court in the case of Lok
Prahari (supra) has again reiterated that
the power to stay a conviction is by way of
an exception. The decision in the case of
Navjot Singh Sidhu (supra) has also been
relied upon which states that the power to
stay of conviction has to be resorted in a
rare case only (para 15).

19. In the present case the ground as
is taken for suspension of conviction is that
in the event the same is not granted the
appellant
/
applicant
will
remain
disqualified under the Act, 1951.

20. The law as is continuously being
held, reiterated and referred too is that
powers of suspension of conviction should
be exercised in rare cases only. The
conviction of the appellant / applicant if for
rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapon,
endangering life or personal safety of
others, assault or criminal force to deter
1068 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
public servant from discharging his duty,
intentional insult with intent to provoke breach
of peace and criminal intimidation which had
caused a law and order problem and had thrown
the peace of the citizens out of gear. Section 8
of the Act, 1951 stipulates the disqualification
on conviction for certain offences. The offences
under the Indian Penal Code covered by the act
are which have the potentiality to destroy the
core values of a healthy democracy, safety of
the State, economic stability, national security,
and prevalence and sustenance of peace and
harmony amongst citizens and may others. The
criminal activities resulting in disqualification
are related to various spheres pertaining to the
interest of the nation, common citizenry
interest, communal harmony, and prevalence of
goods governance. Merely by pleading that
appellant by the conviction will stand
disqualified as per the Act, 1951 is no ground to
suspend the conviction.

21. The application is, accordingly
rejected.
----------
(2022) 12 ILRA 1068
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 05.12.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE MRS. RENU AGARWAL, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 736 of 1984

Mumtazim & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Hasibullah Khan, Amrendra Nath Tripathi,
Suresh Kumar Yadav

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A.
Criminal Law- Indian Evidence Act, 1872-
Section 134-Other eye-witnesses were not
produced by prosecution- It is not the
number of witnesses which is to be
countered but it is the reliability and
veracity of witnesses which has to be
considered.

Settled law that it is not the quantity but the
quality of evidence, which is important.

Indian Evidence Act, 1872- Section 3-
P.Ws. 1 and 2 are interested witnesses as
P.W.-1 is the son of deceased and P.W.-2
is the brother of the deceased- No
material contradiction could be extracted.
Therefore they cannot be disbelieved
merely
because
they
are
interested
witnesses.

Where the testimony of the related witnesses is
credible and trustworthy then the same cannot
be disbelieved merely on the ground that the
witnesses happen to be related to the witnesses
as they are natural witnesses.

Criminal Appeal rejected. (E-3) (Para 37,
41)

Case Law/ Judgements relied upon:-

1. Sunil Kumar Vs St. Govt. of NCT of Del.
(2003) 11 SCC 367

2. Gulam Sabar Vs St. of Bih. (2014) 3 SCC 401:

3. Kartik Malhar Vs St. of Bih. (1996) 1 SCC 614

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Renu Agarwal, J.)

1. This appeal under Section 374 (2)
Cr.P.C has been preferred by the convicted
appellants
Muntazim,
Mustaqim,
Rhimuddin and Idris against the judgment
and order dated 19.09.1984 passed by Shri
H.L. Kurel III-Additional Sessions Judge,
Barabanki in Sessions Trial No. 241 of
1982
convicting
and
sentencing
the
appellants under Section 147 IPC to
undergo one year rigorous imprisonment,