IN THE LUCKNOW BENCH OF THE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT AT LUCKNOW

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 267/2014

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH .APPELLANT

v.
PREMCHAND .RESPONDENT

Hon'ble Vikramjeet Bagh, J Honble Najmus Ahmed, J

Challenge in these appeals is to the verdict rendered by learned Sessions Court, Lucknow dated
11.2.2011 in Sessions Case No 42 of 2008 whereby the Appellant (Premchand) has been acquitted of the
offences under section 302 and 307 IPC.

The prosecution case in brief is:

The deceased (Mangu Ram) was a colleague of the informant (Chaman Lal) and they used to work
together in the UP Primary Education Department. On 14.10.2008, they had gone for inspection of
primary schools as there were allegations of large irregularities committed by the Appellant. The
deceased reached the school at Jillah Block, Moradabad at around 11 am in their official Maruti van.

On seeing them there, the Appellant started hurling abuses at the deceased and first informant and
threatened to kill them if they move towards the school. Not paying heed to the Appellants warnings,
the deceased and informant proceeded forward. The Appellant charged at them with a switch-knife and
the informant fled the spot, however, the deceased tripped and fell when he tried to escape. The
Appellant stabbed the deceased and then fled the spot.

At around 3 pm on 14.10.2008, an FIR was registered at Police Station Jillah and after registration of the
report, Station House Officer Ravindra Kumar Gautam commenced investigation. He prepared recovery
memo of blood stained and plain earth and recovered the body of the deceased from the spot. He
prepared a site plan and thereafter recorded statement of the first informant Chaman Lal. He thereafter
proceeded to arrest the Appellant at around 11 pm at night from the Jillah Bus Station trying to escape.
The bus stop was closed, but would have opened at 4 am in the morning for a bus which comes by at
4:30 am. SI Gajodhar Pandey was entrusted with the task of getting the post mortem of the body done
at the Civil Hospital Moradabad. On the basis of the statement of the Appellant on 15.10.2008, a blood
stained switch-knife was recovered from the location 50 metres from the body of the deceased in the
presence of 2 independent witnesses.

The Proceedings before the Ld. Sessions Court, Lucknow:

The Appellant was charged under sections 302 and 307 of the IPC. He pleaded not guilty and claimed
trial.
The prosecution examined 3 witnesses, namely the first informant Chaman Lal, SI Gajodhar Pandey
(transferred body to have post-mortem done), Dr. Ajai Kumar (conducted post mortem), Shambu Nath
(recovery witness) and the IO of the Case RK Gautam.

The defence did not examine any witnesses but the Accused in his statement under section 313 stated
that he was merely a witness to the incident and it was the first informant Chaman Lal who killed the
deceased. He further stated that no blood-stained clothes were recovered at his behest and claimed
that the deceased and informant used to extort money from him as well as other teachers in the area.
He further claimed that he was not arrested from the bus stop but was at home where was alone.

The Sessions Judge after hearing the case, acquitted the accused on the basis of lack of evidence. He
recorded in the order that the only eye-witness in the case was the informant himself and his cross-
examination revealed that both he and the deceased were under enquiry for corrupt activities. He
further noted that there was a considerable amount of delay between the time of the incident and the
lodging of the FIR and no independent witness was present at the time of arrest of the Appellant. He
further held that there was no finger-print testing which was done for the knife which was recovered at
the behest of the Appellant. The Trial Court had also held that there was insufficient evidence to
attribute the murder of the deceased to the Appellant and that the Appellant had given an explanation
in his statement under section 313 CrPC.

Against this, judgment of acquittal, the State Government filed an appeal. The Ld. Standing Counsel for
the State submitted before us that the Sessions Court had erroneously acquitted the Appellant as it had
ignored that the informant and deceased had gone to inspect the school as a large amount of
irregularities were attributed to the Appellant. It was further submitted that it was a fact that recovery
of a switch-knife was made at the behest of the Appellant in the presence of an independent witness
whose testimony has not been shaken in cross-examination. It was further argued that the mere fact
that no recovery of blood-stained clothes could not be a factor which could help the Appellant. He
further argued that it was not likely that any witnesses would be available at 10.30 pm at night as it is a
rural area and therefore the arrest would not be bad only for that reason. It was further argued that the
Ld. Sessions Court had disregarded the testimony of witnesses and had instead relied upon the
statement of the Appellant under section 313 CrPC as gospel truth, despite no oath being administered
under section 313 proceedings.

The Counsel for the Defence supported the findings made in the trial court order.

We find considerable force in the submissions made before us on behalf of the State. It is as clear as day
that the Appellant has killed the deceased as has been testified by informant/eyewitness Chaman Lal.
He has himself not denied the fact that he was present at the place of the incident. Further, recovery of
the switch-knife was effected on the basis of the statement of the Appellant in the presence of
independent witnesses. If such recovery is made, then not having finger-print analysis would not prove
fatal to the prosecution case. Further the arrest of the Appellant has not been seriously challenged as no
evidence has been brought forward by the Appellant to support his plea of alibi. In rural areas, it is not
uncommon that the police do not find any witnesses late at night. We find enough material to complete
the chain of circumstances against the Appellant especially in light of the falsehoods stated under
section 313 CrPC.

In view of our findings, we hold that the order of the Sessions Court is set aside and the Accused is
convicted under section 304. The State has not brought any evidence on record to prove the motive of
the Appellant and therefore the charge under section 302 does not hold. The Accused is sentenced to
seven years imprisonment under section 304 IPC and fine of Rs 50,000/- in default of payment of fine
further rigorous imprisonment for three years. The offence under section 307 IPC proved and the
Appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for five and fine of Rs 1,000/- and in default of
payment of fine further imprisonment for one year. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
The Appellant is given 7 days to surrender or else be arrested from the date of this judgment.

Hon'ble Vikramjeet Bagh, J

Honble Najmus Ahmed, J

Draft an SLP Against This Order Before Supreme Court Of India On Behalf Of The Respondent Before The
High Court (Premchand)

For this you should:

Identify the legal issues which you will encounter in this case and try to convert them into
grounds
Identify the factual contradictions/inconsistencies and try to convert them into grounds
Identify what documents you should attach along with the SLP which have been referred in the
above order.
Identify case-law on the points raised, both for and against you. Distinguish how the cases
against you are not applicable under the current fact scenario. (Maximum of 3 Supreme Court
cases)