Ram Autar And Others vs State

A.F.R.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2343 of 1989
Ram Autar And Others …..Appellants(s)
Versus
State …..Respondents(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Amit Saxena, Kunwar Bhaskar
Parihar, Vikas Sharma
Counsel for Respondent(s) : D.G.A.
Court No. - 44
HON’BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
HON’BLE JAI KRISHNA UPADHYAY, J.
1. Heard Sri Vikas Sharma and Sri Kunwar Bhaskar, learned counsel
for the appellants and Sri Amit Sinha, learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The instant Criminal Appeal has been filed against the judgement
st
and order dated 07.12.1989 passed by the I Additional District &
Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar, convicting the appellants Ram Autar,
Rakesh Kumar Misra @ Doctor, Laddan Misra @ Mahesh and Smt.
Rajdei under Sections 498A, 302, 323 of the Indian Penal Code
(hereinafter referred to as “I.P.C.”) , Police Station – Maharajpur,
District - Kanpur Nagar.
th
3. On the 13 of January, 1986 at 10:00 AM, a first information
report (hereinafter referred to as “F.I.R.”) was lodged under Section
498A and 328 of I.P.C. alleging that the brother of the first informant

2
CRLA No. 2343 of 1989
(Ganga Ram Sevak Pandey) had alleged that his sister Vijay Laxmi, who
was married to one Rakesh Mishra @ Doctor in the summer of 1984,
was all the time being tortured by the in-laws. After her marriage she had
gone to her maternal home (maika) two or three times only. Everytime
she had visited her maika , she used to complain about being tortured and
beaten at her in-laws’ house (sasural) . She, deceased, had told him that
the in-laws were saying that her brothers may give money to the husband
of Vijay Laxmi to do business or her brothers may make the husband of
Vijay Laxmi a partner in their business. On 12.01.1986, he had stated
that his brother Ganga Charan and the son of his other sister had gone to
the house of Vijay Laxmi to bring her to her maternal home (mayka) .
The son of the other sister was named Vijay Kishor @ Munna. When
they asked the mother-in-law to send Vijay Laxmi to her mayka, she
outrightly refused and again insisted on the demands which she had
earlier made. Upon this Ganga Charan, the brother of the first informant,
returned home. However, the bhanja i.e. Vijay Kishor @ Munna was left
behind. On the next day i.e. on 13.01.1986 at around 10:00 AM, the
bhanja went to the house of the first informant and informed the first
informant and his brothers that his mausi i.e. Vijay Laxmi was not being
permitted to go to her maika and that she was also being beaten by the
in-laws. He also indicated that they were giving Vijay Laxmi something
to eat and were saying that if she did not eat what was being given to her
then they would beat her even more. The bhanja had stated that when he
tried to intervene then he was also given a beating by the in-laws of
Vijay Laxmi. Upon this, the first informant reached the matrimonial

3
CRLA No. 2343 of 1989
house of Vijay Laxmi at Bausar, where he was informed that Vijay
Laxmi was suffering from cholera. However, when the first informant
inquired about the well being of Vijay Laxmi, then she informed that the
in-laws had given her something to eat and because of which her tongue
was faltering and she was not feeling very well.
4. To make the case look stronger, the first informant stated that the
demands which were made by the in-laws were made in the presence of
Dinesh Kumar, Shravan Kumar Shukla and Shriprakash Mishra. He had
stated that upon the information reaching the mayka, the other two
brothers i.e. Ganga Prasad Pandey and Ganga Sharan Pandey also
reached Bausar, the matrimonial home of the sister. Upon seeing that the
sister was not very well, Ganga Prasad Pandey and Ganga Sharan
Pandey, the two brothers who had reached Bausar, made arrangements
for transportation and took their sister to Kanpur. He himself i.e. Ganga
Ram Sevak had come to the police station to get the F.I.R. lodged. The
sister of the first informant, upon reaching Kanpur, however died on
13.01.1986 at 07:00 PM. The case was thereafter being investigated
under Section 498A and 302 of the I.P.C. The inquest of the deceased
was done in the presence of five witnesses namely Ganga Prasad, Shyam
Shankar, Shyam Sundar, Arvind Kumar and Smt. Rekha Devi. Ganga
Prasad was one of the brothers of the deceased. In the opinion of the
panches, it was stated that the death had occurred on account of
administration of poison. The inquest, which had commenced at 11:30
AM on 14.01.1986, got concluded on the very same day by 12:30 PM.
Thereafter, the body was sent for postmortem. The postmortem report

4
CRLA No. 2343 of 1989
was dated 15.01.1986 and was finally prepared at 03:45 PM. The two
injuries which were on the body of the deceased were
“(i) Abrasion 2½ cm x 2 cm on (Rt) Paraspinal region 2 cm lateral
th th
to midline at the level of 10 & 11 Dorsal Spine.
(ii) Abrasion 3 cm x 2 cm on the left Paraspinal region 3 cm lateral
th th
to midline at the level of 11 & 12 Dorsal Spine.
5. Also, since the bhanja i.e. Vijay Kishor @ Munna had alleged that
he was also injured while the in-laws were beating the deceased, his
injuries were also examined and an injury report was prepared on
13.01.1986 itself. The three injuries, which were found on Vijay Kishor,
are being reproduced here as under:
“(i) Bruise on left side of moxbridge 1 cm medial to medial angle of
left eye. Size 2.1 cm x 1.8 cm.
(ii) Bruise in the ant. aspect of Rt. Thigh & above Rt. knee joint size
4.6 cm x 2.1 cm some bluish in colour
(iii) e/o pain in back
Opinion:- Injuries No. i & ii are simple caused by some hard & blunt
object and duration is about one day
6. The viscera report, which was sent after the conclusion of the
post-mortem, was received on 27.10.1986 and in the stomach, portion of
intestine, kidneys and spleen, the poison “zinc phosphide” was found.
7. After the police had submitted its report and the case was taken
cognizance of by the Sessions Court, charges were framed under Section
302 and 498A of I.P.C. for the killing and torturing of the deceased vis-a-
vis Rakesh Kumar Misra @ Doctor, Laddan Misra @ Mahesh (Jeth) ,
Ram Autar (Father-in-law) and Smt. Rajdei (Mother-in-law). For the
injuries caused to Vijay Kishor @ Munna, charges were framed under
Section 323 of I.P.C. Upon the commencement of the trial from the side

5
CRLA No. 2343 of 1989
of the prosecution as many as ten witnesses were examined. The PW-4,
Dr. A.K. Tiwari, was brought as a court witness also.
8. PW-1, Ganga Sewak, was the brother of the deceased and had got
the F.I.R. lodged and he deposed about the incident in question resulting
in death of his sister. He had proved the written report Exhibit Ka-1 and
he had also proved the F.I.R. Exhibit Ka-12. He had testified as to how,
to begin with, on the 12.01.1986, his younger brother Ganga Charan and
bhanja, Vijay Kishor @ Munna, had gone to fetch his sister. When the
in-laws had refused to send the sister, then Ganga Charan had gone back
to his house while the nephew had stayed back. The PW-1 had again told
as to how the nephew came running to him on 13.01.186 and told about
the entire incident. He also told about the injuries he had sustained.
Upon getting the news, he alongwith his younger brothers Ganga Prasad
and Ganga Charan reached the matrimonial home of the deceased where
he found Kamta Mishra and Rakesh Kumar were present who, upon
being asked, had told him that she was suffering from cholera. When he
reached his sister she also told him that she was suffering from cholera
and then he had testified that he went to a doctor called Dr. Ramesh
Kumar Sharma who had refused to treat her as he could not understand
the illness. When the doctor scolded Vijay Laxmi, the deceased, and had
asked her as to what exactly had happened then she had stated that her
husband and her mother-in-law had given her some medicine because of
which her condition had deteriorated. Thereupon, the other brother of the
deceased and the first informant i.e. Ganga Prasad took the sister on a
tempo to Kanpur and on the way she died. He had stated that to the

6
CRLA No. 2343 of 1989
scribe he had told that Vijay Laxmi was administered some medicine by
her mother-in-law and her husband, but why the specific allegation had
not been mentioned in the F.I.R., he did not know. He had, however,
stated that when he had reached the matrimonial home of his sister, she
was very much speaking. Vijay Kishor @ Munna, bhanja , quite often
used to go to the sister’s matrimonial home, but he had never informed
him i.e. PW-1 about the maltreatment which was being meted out to his
mausi . He had stated that Rakesh Kumar Mishra @ Doctor and Vijay
Laxmi used to stay in a separate unit of the house. He had also stated
that there was no froth coming out of the mouth of the deceased while
she was alive or even after she had died.
9. PW-2, Shri Kant Shukla, was the Executive Magistrate, Kanpur.
He had deposed about the panchayatnama being prepared by him
relating to the dead-body of Vijay Laxmi. He was also the person who
had sent the body for postmortem.
10. PW-3, Vijai Kishore, was the bhanja, who was related to the
deceased and the PW-1, and had deposed about the fact relating to his
presence at the time of the beating of Vijay Laxmi by the family
members of Rakesh Kumar Misra @ Doctor. He had also detailed about
the fact that Vijay Laxmi was forced to eat something and it had later on
resulted in her death. Even though the PW-1 had stated that the bhanja
had stayed back on 12.01.1986, he had stated that after his mama had
left the matrimonial home of the deceased, he had also returned home
and on his return journey he had visited some farmer to get wheat etc.
which he intended to sell for weiging and thereafter he had gone back to

7
CRLA No. 2343 of 1989
his mausi’s house where he witnessed that the mausi was being beaten
and when he intervened, he was also beaten by them with danda (stick).
His nose was therefore bleeding. However when the in-laws of the
mausi , the next morning, went for answering the call of nature, he ran
away from the house of his mausi and went straight to the house of PW-
1. He informed that in the night Rakesh Kumar Misra @ Doctor,
husband of the deceased, had dissolved some medicine in water and had
given it to Vijay Laxmi. Despite the fact that mausi was unable to drink
that medicine, Rakesh Kumar Misra had still administered it to her. He
had stated that when he had come back in the evening on 12.01.1986
then no one by the name of Kamta Mishra was there at the house of his
mausi . About the medicine which was administered, questions were put
to him and he had stated that he had no knowledge as to what kind of
medicine it was, but the husband of his mausi had spread her mouth and
had forcefully poured it into the mouth. Whether her mausi had resisted,
he did not know. He had not seen the colour of the medicine. After the
medicine was administered, water was also given to his mausi .
11. PW-4, Dr. A.K. Tiwari, was the doctor who had proven the post-
mortem report, Exhibit Ka-7, which was prepared by him. He had stated
that the injuries which were there on the body of the deceased were not
serious in nature and could have been caused because of the fact that she
was taken on a tempo to the hospital. He had stated that the viscera
which was preserved, was sealed in his presence and the viscera was sent
to the C.M.O. Office. What number was there on the preserved bottle, he
did not know. When the bottle was taken to the Office of the C.M.O., he

8
CRLA No. 2343 of 1989
did not know and where from the Office of the C.M.O. the bottle had
gone that also he did not know.
12. PW-5 was Dr. D.R. Verma who had examined the injuries of the
bhanja , Vijay Kishor @ Munna.
13. PW-6, Dr. Ramesh Chandra, was the doctor to whom the PW-1
had taken his sister in the evening on 12.01.1986. This doctor was taken
to the house of the sister i.e. Vijay Laxmi and he had advised her to be
taken to Kanpur for proper treatment.
14. PW-7 was Constable Raj Narayan Singh who had proved the G.D.
entry about the arrest of Ram Autar, father-in-law of the deceased.
15. PW-8, Chitrangad Singh, was the Investigating Officer. He had
clearly stated that the PW-3 Vijay Kishor @ Munna had stated in his
statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. that Kamta Mishra was present at
the time when the beating etc. of the deceased was being done. He had
stated that he had not taken any statement of the chemical examiner who
was to conduct the test on the viscera. The viscera was sent to the
C.M.O. Office by Constable Rajpal, PW-10.
16. PW-9 was Constable Upendra Kumar Dubey who had proven the
chick, prepared by him.
17. PW-10 was Constable Rajpal who had stated that he had taken the
sealed bottle from the Office of the C.M.O. on 21.03.1986 to the
Forensic Science Laboratory.
18. Dr. A.K. Tiwari, PW-4, who had conducted the post-mortem was
called again as a court witness and had told about the fact that zinc
phosphide was responsible for the death of the deceased. Thereafter, the

9
CRLA No. 2343 of 1989
statement of the four accused persons namely Ram Autar, Rakesh Kumar
Misra @ Doctor, Laddan Misra @ Mahesh and Smt. Rajdei were
recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Upon the conclusion of trial when
the judgment of conviction was passed by the learned Ist Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar on 07.01.1989, the instant
Appeal was filed.
19. The appellant no. 4, Smt. Rajdei, died during the pendency of the
appeal and the appeal, therefore, was dismissed as abated vis-a-vis the
appellant no. 4.
20. Sri Vikas Sharma and Sri Kunwar Bhaskar, learned counsel
appearing for the appellants have made the following submissions:
(i) Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that even
though the conviction was on the basis of the fact that some
poison had been administered to the deceased, there was
absolutely no eye-witness to the fact that any poison was
administered. He submitted that there was a possibility of the fact
that because the matrimonial life of the deceased was not a happy
one, she had herself taken the poison. He had stated that at the
time of the lodging of the F.I.R., the PW-1 had stated that the
deceased had told him that something had been given to Vijay
Laxmi to eat. To corroborate this evidence, the PW-3 gave his
statement but he had clearly stated that something was mixed in
water and was administered to her and she was made to drink the
same and thereafter water was also given to her. Learned counsel
for the appellants further submitted that there was every

10
CRLA No. 2343 of 1989
possibility that the deceased herself had taken the poison earlier
and thereafter the in-laws were trying to give her medicines
without understanding the reason for her illness. Even the PW-1,
had though stated in the examination-in-chief that his sister had
told him that the in-laws had given something to eat but, in the
cross-examination he had stated that she had categorically stated
that she was suffering from cholera. He had stated that Dr.
Ramesh Chandra, the PW-6, had stated that the condition of the
patient was not good and, therefore, the version of the PW-1 who
had stated that her husband and her mother-in-law had given to
her poison mixed in the medicine, could not believed as she was
not in a condition to speak.
(ii) Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the PW-3
had wrongly been shown as an eye-witness of the alleged incident.
His age was only 12 years at the time he was testifying in the
court. He was shown as a shopkeeper. He had given a
contradictory statement that the husband had not given the
medicine but it was in fact given by Laddan Misra i.e. jeth of the
deceased and also nothing was given to her to eat but something
was mixed in water and was given to her. This witness had denied
the presence of Kamta Misra but the I.O. had stated that in fact
Kamta Misra was throughout there and in his statement under
Section 161 of Cr.P.C. the PW-3 had also stated that Kamta Misra
was present at the spot. Learned counsel stated therefore that the
PW-3 was an unreliable witness.

11
CRLA No. 2343 of 1989
(iii) Further, learned counsel for the appellants stated that “zinc
phosphide” was a pesticide which could not be given on the sly. It
had a bitter taste and had a bad/foul smell and if it had to be given
forcefully then the person who was being administered and was in
a good health would resist the taking of it tooth and nail. However,
if she had taken it herself then it was a different matter altogether.
He had stated that the injuries as had been opined by the doctor
who had conducted the post-mortem were also not the injuries
which were a result of beating etc. but were a result of the fact that
she had got injured by the tempo on which she was being carried
to the hospital.
(iv) Even the injuries of the PW-3, he submitted, had appeared
to be self inflicted. He had stated that the PW-3 had himself stated
that he had after getting the beating, gone to deal with some
shopkeepers and had also weighed wheat etc. This could not have
happened if he had already received a beating and he was
bleeding.
(v) The three brothers namely Ganga Prasad, Ganga Charan
and Ganga Sharan were very much witnesses of what had
happened and in fact Ganga Prasad and Ganga Sharan had also
accompanied her to the hospital at Kanpur but they were never
produced in the witness box.
(vi) Learned counsel for the appellants stated that the viscera
report itself was shrouded in mystery. After the doctor who had
conducted the post-mortem had sealed the viscera, it was nowhere

12
CRLA No. 2343 of 1989
entered in any register. Who received it and took it to the Office of
the C.M.O. and who thereafter kept guard over it, was not clear
from the case of the prosecution. Which viscera and whose
viscera, the PW-10, Constable Rajpal, had taken from the Office
of the C.M.O. to the Forensic Science Laboratory, was not clear.
Even the expert at the forensic science laboratory was not
produced. The accused persons were neither confronted by the
viscera report nor were they confronted with the viscera while the
statements of their were being recorded under Section 313 of
Cr.P.C.
21. With regard to the above argument, learned counsel for the
appellants relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Chandan Pasi
& Ors. versus The State of Bihar reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC
2599 . He relied upon the paragraphs no. 6 to 9 of this judgment and the
same are being reproduced here as under:
“ 6. One of the non-negotiable requirements of a fair trial is that the
accused persons should have ample opportunity to dispel the case and
claims of the prosecution against them. This ample opportunity can take
many forms, whether it is adequate representation through counsel or the
opportunity to call witnesses to present their side of the case or to have
the occasion to answer each and every allegation against them, on their
own, in their own words. The last one happens under Section 313 CrPC.
7. This Court, in many judgments, delineated the scope and object
of Section 313 CrPC. The position is no longer up for debate. Even so,
we may refer to certain pronouncements for the sake of completeness.
4
7.1. In Sanatan Naskar v. State of W.B , this Court as follows, regarding
the scope of the examination under Section 313 CrPC:
“ 21. The answers by an accused under Section 313 CrPC are
of relevance for finding out the truth and examining the
veracity of the case of the prosecution. The scope of Section
313 CrPC is wide and is not a mere formality. ...

13
CRLA No. 2343 of 1989
22. As already noticed, the object of recording the statement
of the accused under Section 313 CrPC is to put all
incriminating evidence to the accused so as to provide him
an opportunity to explain such incriminating circumstances
appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution. At
the same time, also permit him to put forward his own
version or reasons, if he so chooses, in relation to his
involvement or otherwise in the crime. The court has been
empowered to examine the accused but only after the
prosecution evidence has been concluded. It is a mandatory
obligation upon the court and, besides ensuring the
compliance therewith, the court has to keep in mind that the
accused gets a fair chance to explain his conduct. The option
lies with the accused to maintain silence coupled with
simpliciter denial or, in the alternative, to explain his version
and reasons for his alleged involvement in the commission of
crime. This is the statement which the accused makes without
fear or right of the other party to cross-examine him.
However, if the statements made are false, the court is
entitled to draw adverse inferences and pass consequential
orders as may be called for in accordance with law. The
primary purpose is to establish a direct dialogue between the
court and the accused and to put every important
incriminating piece of evidence to the accused and grant him
an opportunity to answer and explain. ...”
(emphasis supplied)
5
7.2. In Indrakunwar v. State of Chhattisgarh , this Court,
through one of us (Sanjay Karol, J.), after consideration of
various judgments formulated the following principles vis-à-
vis this Section:
“ 35. A perusal of various judgments15 rendered by
this Court reveals the following principles, as evolved
over time when considering such statements.
35.1 The object, evident from the Section itself, is to
enable the accused to themselves explain any
circumstances appearing in the evidence against them.
35.2 The intent is to establish a dialogue between the
Court and the accused. This process benefits the

14
CRLA No. 2343 of 1989
accused and aids the Court in arriving at the final
verdict.
35.3 The process enshrined is not a matter of
procedural formality but is based on the cardinal
principle of natural justice, i.e., audi alterum partem.
35.4 The ultimate test when concerned with the
compliance of the Section is to enquire and ensure
whether the accused got the opportunity to say his
piece.
35.5 In such a statement, the accused may or may not
admit involvement or any incriminating circumstance
or may even offer an alternative version of events or
interpretation. The accused may not be put to
prejudice by any omission or inadequate questioning.
35.6 The right to remain silent or any answer to a
question which may be false shall not be used to his
detriment, being the sole reason.
35.7 This statement cannot form the sole basis of
conviction and is neither a substantive nor a substitute
piece of evidence. It does not discharge but reduces the
prosecution's burden of leading evidence to prove its
case. They are to be used to examine the veracity of
the prosecution's case.
35.8 This statement is to be read as a whole. One part
cannot be read in isolation.
35.9 Such a statement, as not on oath, does not qualify
as a piece of evidence under Section 3 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872; however, the inculpatory aspect
as may be borne from the statement may be used to
lend credence to the case of the prosecution.
35.10 The circumstances not put to the accused while
rendering his statement under the Section are to be
excluded from consideration as no opportunity has
been afforded to him to explain them.
35.11 The Court is obligated to put, in the form of
questions, all incriminating circumstances to the
accused so as to give him an opportunity to articulate
his defence. The defence so articulated must be
carefully scrutinized and considered.

15
CRLA No. 2343 of 1989
35.12 Non-compliance with the Section may cause
prejudice to the accused and may impede the process
of arriving at a fair decision.”
6
7.3. In Raj Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) as subsequently
approved by a bench of three-Judges in Aejaz Ahmad Sheikh
7
v. State of U.P. and Another , the Court laid down the
following factors:
“ 22. The law consistently laid down by this Court can
be summarised as under:
22.1. It is the duty of the trial court to put each
material circumstance appearing in the evidence
against the accused specifically, distinctively and
separately. The material circumstance means the
circumstance or the material on the basis of which the
prosecution is seeking his conviction.
22.2. The object of examination of the accused under
Section 313 is to enable the accused to explain any
circumstance appearing against him in the evidence.
22.3. The Court must ordinarily eschew material
circumstances not put to the accused from
consideration while dealing with the case of the
particular accused.
22.4. The failure to put material circumstances to the
accused amounts to a serious irregularity. It will
vitiate the trial if it is shown to have prejudiced the
accused.
22.5. If any irregularity in putting the material
circumstance to the accused does not result in failure
of justice, it becomes a curable defect. However, while
deciding whether the defect can be cured, one of the
considerations will be the passage of time from the
date of the incident.
22.6. In case such irregularity is curable, even the
appellate court can question the accused on the
material circumstance which is not put to him.
22.7. In a given case, the case can be remanded to the
trial court from the stage of recording the
supplementary statement of the accused concerned
under Section 313CrPC.

16
CRLA No. 2343 of 1989
22.8. While deciding the question whether prejudice
has been caused to the accused because of the
omission, the delay in raising the contention is only
one of the several factors to be considered.”
8
[See also: Ranvir Yadav v. State of Bihar and Naresh Kumar
9
v. State of Delhi) ]
8. Having duly considered the position of law and principles
as above, we now examine the statements of the appellant(s)
recorded under this Section. For ready reference, the
statements are reproduced below:
Appellant No.1 (Chandan Pasi) statement:
“My name is Chandan Pasi, My Father's name is Birendra
Pasi …
1. Question: - Did you listen to the Deposition of the
Witnesses?
Answer: - Yes
(2) Question: - The witnesses have alleged and stated that
on March 31, 2016, at 8:05 AM, with common intention
along with other accused persons killed the Informant's
father Ghughali Pasi by assaulting with katta, daba.
What do you have to say about this?
Answer: False statement.
(3) Question- It is also alleged and evidenced against you
that you entered the Informant's house and verbally
abused and physically assaulted the Informant's niece
Poonam Kumari and Kajal Kumari, along with his
nephew, Raju Kumar. What do you have to say about
this?
Answer: False allegations.
(4) Question: - Whether you want to Say anything in your
defence?
Answer: I am innocent.”
Appellant No.2 (Pappu Pasi) statement:
“My name is Pappu Pasi @ Hindustan Pasi …
1. Question: - Did you listen to the Deposition of the
Witnesses?
Answer: - Yes
(2) Question: - The witnesses have alleged and stated that
on March 31, 2016, at 8:05 AM with common intention
along with other accused persons killed the Informant's

17
CRLA No. 2343 of 1989
father Ghughali Pasi by assaulting with katta, daba.
What do you have to say about this?
Answer: False Allegation.
(3) Question- It is also alleged and evidenced against you
that you entered the Informant's house and verbally
abused and physically assaulted the Informant's niece
Poonam Kumari and Kajal Kumari, along with his
nephew, Raju Kumar. What do you have to say about
this?
Answer: False allegation.
(4) Question: - Whether you want to Say anything in your
defence?
Answer: I am innocent.”
Appellant No.3 (Gidik Pasi) statement:
“My name is Gidik Pasi …
1. Question: - Did you listen to the Deposition of the
Witnesses?
Answer: - Yes
(2) Question: - The witnesses have alleged and stated that
on March 31, 2016, at 8:05 AM with common intention
along with other accused persons killed the Informant's
father Ghughali Pasi by assaulting with katta, daba.
What do you have to say about this?
Answer: False Allegation.
(3) Question- It is also alleged and evidenced against you
that you entered the Informant's house and verbally
abused and physically assaulted the Informant's niece
Poonam Kumari and Kajal Kumari, along with his
nephew, Raju Kumar. What do you have to say about
this?
Answer: False allegations.
(4) Question: - Whether you want to Say anything in your
defence?
Answer: I am innocent.”
9. The statements extracted above reveal a sorry state of
affairs- an abject failure on the part of the Court in complying
with the basic tenets of law. The statements given by all three
persons are carbon copies of each other. How such statements

18
CRLA No. 2343 of 1989
can pass muster at the hands of the learned Trial Judge is
something which we fail to understand. Out of the four
questions asked, directly related to the sequence of events,
were only two. The second question was as general as can be,
with reference to only the bare allegations, to which an
omnibus denial was issued. The third was also of similar
nature, saying that it has been alleged and evidenced, and
nothing further. This cannot be said to be the putting of every
material circumstance. It is equally disturbing for us to see
that in the desire to secure a conviction for the accused
persons, the prosecutor also let their duty of assisting the
Court in conducting the examination of the accused under this
section fall by the wayside. The prosecutor is an officer of the
Court and holds a solemn duty to act in the interest of justice.
They cannot act as a defence lawyer, but for the State, with the
sole aim of making the gauntlet of punishment fall on the
10
accused. [See: Sovaran Singh Prajapati v. State of U.P. ]
22. He further relied upon a judgment in Kalicharan & Ors. versus
State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2023) 2 SCC 583 . Since the learned
counsel for the appellants relied upon the paragraphs no. 16, 17, 20, 21
and 22 and they are being reproduced here as under:
“ 16. There are provisions made in CrPC in Chapter XVII regarding the
framing of charge. The object of the said provisions is obviously to make
the accused aware of the accusations against him on the basis of which
the prosecution is seeking to convict him. The object of the provisions
regarding the framing of charge is that accused should be in a position
to effectively defend himself. An accused can properly defend himself
provided he is clearly informed about the nature of the allegations
against him before the actual trial starts. That is why there are elaborate
provisions in CrPC in that behalf. Sub- section (1) of Section 212 is
material for our consideration which reads thus:
“ 212. Particulars as to time, place and person .—(1) The
charge shall contain such particulars as to the time and
place of the alleged offence, and the person (if any) against
whom, or the thing (if any) in respect of which, it was
committed, as are reasonably sufficient to give the accused
notice of the matter with which he is charged.

19
CRLA No. 2343 of 1989
What is more important for this case is Section 213 which
reads thus:
“ 213. When manner of committing offence must be
stated .—When the nature of the case is such that the
particulars mentioned in sections 211 and 212 do not
give the accused sufficient notice of the matter with
which he is charged, the charge shall also contain
such particulars of the manner in which the alleged
offence was committed as will be sufficient for that
purpose.”
17. The emphasis is on giving details of the manner of
committing offence. Unless the particulars such as specific
Sections of the penal statute as well as the time and place of
the commission of the alleged offence are incorporated in the
charge, the accused will not be in a position to properly
defend himself. Even these particulars may not be enough in
many cases to enable the accused to properly defend himself.
That is why there is a specific requirement incorporated in
Section 213 that if the particulars mentioned in Sections 211
and 212 do not give the accused sufficient notice of the matter
with which he is charged, the charge shall also contain such
particulars of the manner in which the alleged offence was
committed as will be sufficient for that purpose. Illustration
(e) to Section 213 provides that when the charge contains an
allegation that ‘A’ is accused of the murder of ‘B’ at a given
time and place, the charge need not state the manner in which
‘A’ murdered ‘B’. Going by the charge framed in this case, it
is alleged therein that it was accused no.2 who murdered
deceased Harpal Singh by firing bullets from his pistol.
Though the case of the prosecution as can be seen from the
evidence is that accused nos.1, 3 and 4 committed the murder
of Harpal Singh by using sharp weapons in their hand, there
is no charge framed against accused nos.1, 3 and 4 alleging
that they murdered Harpal Singh. As there is no charge
framed against accused nos.1,3 and 4 of committing the
murder of Harpal Singh, Illustration (e) will not apply.
Therefore, it was necessary to frame a charge in terms of
Section 213 by stating the manner of committing the offence of
murder by accused nos. 1,3 and 4.

20
CRLA No. 2343 of 1989
20. When the Court of appeal is called upon to decide whether
any failure of justice has been occasioned due to omission to
frame a charge or error in the charge, the Court is duty bound
to examine the entire record of the trial including all exhibited
documents, depositions and the statements of the accused
recorded under Section 313.
21. At this stage, we must refer to the requirement of the
examination of the accused under Section 313 of CrPC.
Section 313 of CrPC reads thus:-
“ 313. Power to examine the accused .—(1) In every
inquiry or trial, for the purpose of enabling the
accused personally to explain any circumstances
appearing in the evidence against him , the Court—
(a) may at any stage, without previously
warning the accused put such questions to him
as the Court considers necessary;
(b) shall, after the witnesses for the prosecution
have been examined and before he is called on
for his defence, question him generally on the
case:
Provided that in a summons-case, where the Court has
dispensed with the personal attendance of the accused,
it may also dispense with his examination under clause
(b).
(2) No oath shall be administered to the accused when
he is examined under sub-section (1).
(3) The accused shall not render himself liable to
punishment by refusing to answer such questions, or
by giving false answers to them.
(4) The answers given by the accused may be taken
into consideration in such inquiry or trial, and put in
evidence for or against him in any other inquiry into,
or trial for, any other offence which such answers may
tend to show he has committed.
[(5) The Court may take help of Prosecutor and
Defence Counsel in preparing relevant questions
which are to be put to the accused and the Court may
permit filing of written statement by the accused as
sufficient compliance of this section.]”

21
CRLA No. 2343 of 1989
The questions in separate statements of the accused nos. 1 to
4 recorded by the Trial Court are almost identical. Question
no.5 is the only question put to them about the evidence
adduced against them on the charge of murder of Harpal
Singh. Question no.5 put to accused no.3 reads thus:-
“Ques 5 – That it has come up in prosecution evidence
that on being exhorted by accused Kalicharan,
accused Yaad Prakash fired 4-5 shots at complainant
Atar Singh and his family members with his country
made pistol with intention to kill, that hit
complainant’s cousin Harpal Singh and he died on
the spot .
What do you have to say in this regard?”
(emphasis added)
22. Such a case was not at all made out by the prosecution in
the evidence before the Court. The material brought on record
by the prosecution witnesses (PW-1 and PW-2) is to the effect
that Harpal Singh died due to injuries sustained as a result of
an attack made by accused nos.1,3 and 4 on him by sharp
weapons. These material circumstances brought on record
against the accused on which their conviction is based were
never put to the accused. What was put to the accused was not
the case made out by the prosecution in the evidence. No
questions are asked in the Section 313 statement about the
post-mortem of the body of Harpal Singh. It is not put to the
witness that the cause of death of Harpal Singh was due to
haemorrhage and shock as a result of injuries caused by
sharp weapons. Questioning an accused under Section 313
CrPC is not an empty formality. The requirement of Section
313 CrPC is that the accused must be explained the
circumstances appearing in the evidence against him so that
accused can offer an explanation. After an accused is
questioned under Section 313 CrPC, he is entitled to take a
call on the question of examining defence witnesses and
leading other evidence. If the accused is not explained the
important circumstances appearing against him in the
evidence on which his conviction is sought to be based, the
accused will not be in a position to explain the said
circumstances brought on record against him. He will not be

22
CRLA No. 2343 of 1989
able to properly defend himself. In paragraph 21 of the
decision of this Court in the case of Jai Dev v. State of
1
Punjab , it was held thus:-
“ 21. In support of his contention that the failure to put
the relevant point against the appellant Hari Singh
would affect the final conclusion of the High Court,
Mr Anthony has relied on a decision of this Court in
Hate Singh Bhagat Singh v. State of Madhya Bharat
[1951 SCC 1060 : AIR 1953 SC 468] . In that case,
this Court has no doubt referred to the fact that it was
important to put to the accused each material fact
which is intended to be used against him and to afford
him a chance of explaining it if he can. But these
observations must be read in the light of the other
conclusions 1 (1963) 3 SCR 489 reached by this Court
in that case. It would, we think, be incorrect to suggest
that these observations are intended to lay down a
general and inexorable rule that wherever it is found
that one of the points used against the accused person
has not been put to him, either the trial is vitiated or
his conviction is rendered bad . The examination of
the accused person under Section 342 is undoubtedly
intended to give him an opportunity to explain any
circumstances appearing in the evidence against him.
In exercising its powers under Section 342, the court
must take care to put all relevant circumstances
appearing in the evidence to the accused person. It
would not be enough to put a few general and broad
questions to the accused, for by adopting such a
course the accused may not get opportunity of
explaining all the relevant circumstances. On the
other hand, it would not be fair or right that the court
should put to the accused person detailed questions
which may amount to his cross-examination. The
ultimate test in determining whether or not the
accused has been fairly examined under Section 342
would be to enquire whether, having regard to all the
questions put to him, he did get an opportunity to say
what he wanted to say in respect of prosecution case

23
CRLA No. 2343 of 1989
against him. If it appears that the examination of the
accused person was defective and thereby a prejudice
has been caused to him, that would no doubt be a
serious infirmity. It is obvious that no general rule can
be laid down in regard to the manner in which the
accused person should be examined under Section
342. Broadly stated, however, the true position
appears to be that passion for brevity which may be
content with asking a few omnibus general questions is
as much inconsistent with the requirements of Section
342 as anxiety for thoroughness which may dictate an
unduly detailed and large number of questions which
may amount to the cross-examination of the accused
person. Besides, in the present case, as we have
already shown, failure to put the specific point of
distance is really not very material.”
(emphasis added)
In paragraph 145 of the well known decision of this Court in
the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of
2
Maharashtra , it was held thus:
“ 145. It is not necessary for us to multiply authorities
on this point as this question now stands concluded by
several decisions of this Court. In this view of the
matter, the circumstances which were not put to the
appellant in his examination under Section 313 of
the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 have to be
completely excluded from consideration. ”
(emphasis added)
23. For the same argument learned counsel for the appellants also
relied upon Samsul Haque versus The State of Assam reported in
(2019) 18 SCC 161 . Since he relied upon the paragraphs no. 13, 21 and
22 of this judgment and the same are being reproduced here as under:
“ 13. In the aforesaid context learned Senior Counsel has referred to the
judgment of this Court in Sharad Birdichand Sarda v. State of
1
Maharashtra to contend that if the circumstances are not put to the
accused in his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., they must be

24
CRLA No. 2343 of 1989
completely excluded from consideration because the accused did not
have any chance to explain them. This is stated to be the consistent view
of this Court starting from 1953 in the case of Hate Singh Bhagat Singh
2
v. State of Madhya Bharat . Learned Senior Counsel also referred to the
3
judgment in Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam for the proposition that the
very purpose of examining the accused persons under Section 313 of the
Cr.P.C. is to meet the requirement of the principles of natural justice, i.e.,
audi alteram partem. The accused, thus, must be given an opportunity to
explain the incriminating material that has surfaced against him and the
circumstances which are not put to the accused in his examination
under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be used against him and must be
excluded from consideration.
21. The most vital aspect, in our view, and what drives the nail in the
coffin in the case of the prosecution is the manner in which the court put
the case to accused No.9, and the statement recorded under Section 313
of the Cr.P.C. To say the least it is perfunctory.
22. It is trite to say that, in view of the judgments referred to by the
learned Senior Counsel, aforesaid, the incriminating material is to be
put to the accused so that the accused gets a fair chance to defend
himself. This is in recognition of the principles of audi alteram partem.
Apart from the judgments referred to aforesaid by the learned Senior
Counsel, we may usefully refer to the judgment of this Court in Asraf Ali
7
v. State of Assam . The relevant observations are in the following
paragraphs:
“21. Section 313 of the Code casts a duty on the Court to put in an
enquiry or trial questions to the accused for the purpose of
enabling him to explain any of the circumstances appearing in the
evidence against him. It follows as necessary corollary therefrom 7
(2008) 16 SCC 328 that each material circumstance appearing in
the evidence against the accused is required to be put to him
specifically, distinctly and separately and failure to do so amounts
to a serious irregularity vitiating trial, if it is shown that the
accused was prejudiced.
22. The object of Section 313 of the Code is to establish a direct
dialogue between the Court and the accused. If a point in the
evidence is important against the accused, and the conviction is
intended to be based upon it, it is right and proper that the accused
should be questioned about the matter and be given an opportunity
of explaining it. Where no specific question has been put by the trial
Court on an inculpatory material in the prosecution evidence, it

25
CRLA No. 2343 of 1989
would vitiate the trial. Of course, all these are subject to rider
whether they have caused miscarriage of justice or prejudice. This
Court also expressed similar view in S. Harnam Singh v. The State
(AIR 1976 SC 2140), while dealing with Section 342 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1898 (corresponding to Section 313 of the Code).
Non- indication of inculpatory material in its relevant facets by the
trial Court to the accused adds to vulnerability of the prosecution
case. Recording of a statement of the accused under Section 313 is
not a purposeless exercise.”
24. Relying upon the abovementioned judgments, learned counsel for
the appellants submitted that in the absence of the confrontation of the
viscera and its report vis-a-vis the accused persons, the viscera and its
report could not be relied upon by the prosecution for the purposes of the
conviction of the accused. In this regard, learned counsel for the
appellants relied upon a judgment of Supreme Court in Sujit Biswas v.
State of Assam reported in (2013) 12 SCC 406 . The relevant portion of
this judgment is the paragraph no. 20 and the same is being reproduced
here as under:
“ 20. It is a settled legal proposition that in a criminal trial, the purpose
of examining the accused person under Section 313 CrPC, is to meet the
requirement of the principles of natural justice i.e. audi alteram partem.
This means that the accused may be asked to furnish some explanation
as regards the incriminating circumstances associated with him, and the
court must take note of such explanation. In a case of circumstantial
evidence, the same is essential to decide whether or not the chain of
circumstances is complete. No matter how weak the evidence of the
prosecution may be, it is the duty of the court to examine the accused,
and to seek his explanation as regards the incriminating material that
has surfaced against him. The circumstances which are not put to the
accused in his examination under Section 313 CrPC, cannot be used
against him and must be excluded from consideration. The said
statement cannot be treated as evidence within the meaning of Section 3
of the Evidence Act, as the accused cannot be cross-examined with
reference to such statement.”

26
CRLA No. 2343 of 1989
25. Also, learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the judgment
in Maheshwar Tigga versus State of Jharkhand reported in (2020) 10
SCC 108 . Since he relied upon the paragraphs no. 7 to 9 of this
judgment, they are being reproduced here as under:
“ 7. A bare perusal of the examination of the accused under Section 313
CrPC reveals it to be extremely casual and perfunctory in nature. Three
capsuled questions only were asked to the appellant as follows which he
denied:
“Question 1. There is a witness against you that when the
informant V. Anshumala Tigga was going to school you were
hiding near Tomra canal and after finding the informant in
isolation you forced her to strip naked on knifepoint and
raped her.
Question 2. After the rape when the informant ran to her home
crying to inform her parents about the incident and when the
parents of the informant came to you to inquire about the
incident, you told them that “if I have committed rape then I
will keep her as my wife”.
Question 3. On your instruction, the informant's parents
performed the “Lota Paani” ceremony of the informant, in
which the informant as well as your parents were present, also
in the said ceremony your parents had gifted the informant a
saree and a blouse and the informant's parents had also gifted
you some clothes.”
8. It stands well settled that circumstances not put to an accused
under Section 313 CrPC cannot be used against him, and must be
excluded from consideration. In a criminal trial, the importance of
the questions put to an accused are basic to the principles of natural
justice as it provides him the opportunity not only to furnish his
defence, but also to explain the incriminating circumstances against
him. A probable defence raised by an accused is sufficient to rebut the
accusation without the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
9. This Court, time and again, has emphasised the importance of
putting all relevant questions to an accused under Section 313 CrPC.
In Naval Kishore Singh v. State of Bihar [Naval Kishore Singh v.
State of Bihar, (2004) 7 SCC 502 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1967] , it was held

27
CRLA No. 2343 of 1989
to be an essential part of a fair trial observing as follows: (SCC p.
504, para 5)
“5. The questioning of the accused under Section 313 CrPC
was done in the most unsatisfactory manner. Under Section
313 CrPC the accused should have been given opportunity to
explain any of the circumstances appearing in the evidence
against him. At least, the various items of evidence, which had
been produced by the prosecution, should have been put to the
accused in the form of questions and he should have been
given opportunity to give his explanation. No such opportunity
was given to the accused in the instant case. We deprecate the
practice of putting the entire evidence against the accused put
together in a single question and giving an opportunity to
explain the same, as the accused may not be in a position to
give a rational and intelligent explanation. The trial Judge
should have kept in mind the importance of giving an
opportunity to the accused to explain the adverse
circumstances in the evidence and the Section 313
examination shall not be carried out as an empty formality. It
is only after the entire evidence is unfurled the accused would
be in a position to articulate his defence and to give
explanation to the circumstances appearing in evidence
against him. Such an opportunity being given to the accused is
part of a fair trial and if it is done in a slipshod manner, it
may result in imperfect appreciation of evidence.”
26. Also reliance was placed upon the judgment of Asraf Ali v. State
of Assam and since he relied upon paragraphs 21, 22 and 24 of this
judgment and the same are being reproduced here as under:
“ 21. Section 313 of the Code casts a duty on the court to put in an
enquiry or trial questions to the accused for the purpose of enabling him
to explain any of the circumstances appearing in the evidence against
him. It follows as a necessary corollary therefrom that each material
circumstance appearing in the evidence against the accused is required
to be put to him specifically, distinctly and separately and failure to do
so amounts to a serious irregularity vitiating trial, if it is shown that the
accused was prejudiced.

28
CRLA No. 2343 of 1989
22. The object of Section 313 of the Code is to establish a direct dialogue
between the court and the accused. If a point in the evidence is important
against the accused, and the conviction is intended to be based upon it, it
is right and proper that the accused should be questioned about the
matter and be given an opportunity of explaining it. Where no specific
question has been put by the trial court on an inculpatory material in the
prosecution evidence, it would vitiate the trial. Of course, all these are
subject to rider whether they have caused miscarriage of justice or
prejudice. This Court also expressed a similar view in S. Harnam Singh
v. State (Delhi Admn.) [(1976) 2 SCC 819 : 1976 SCC (Cri) 324 : AIR
1976 SC 2140] while dealing with Section 342 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1898 (corresponding to Section 313 of the Code). Non-
indication of inculpatory material in its relevant facts by the trial court
to the accused adds to the vulnerability of the prosecution case.
Recording of a statement of the accused under Section 313 is not a
purposeless exercise.
24. In certain cases when there is perfunctory examination under Section
313 of the Code, the matter is remanded to the trial court, with a
direction to retry from the stage at which the prosecution was closed.”
27. Sri Amit Sinha, learned Additional Government Advocate,
however, opposed the Appeal and submitted that no advantage could be
taken by the appellants of the fact that the appellants were not
confronted with viscera and its report. Definitely, the viscera was sealed
and was sent to the C.M.O. Office and from there, in the sealed state, it
was sent to the forensic science laboratory. He also submitted that the
PW-1 and the PW-3 were reliable eye-witnesses and that the deceased
had stated in the presence of the PW-1 and PW-3 that poison was
administered to her then it could not be in any way doubted. Also, he
submitted that the PW-3 was a young boy of 11 years at the time of
occurrence and, therefore, he could while he was keeping guard of his
mausi go outside and also deal with customers and this did not mean that
he was in any manner not present at the spot and was only trying to

29
CRLA No. 2343 of 1989
make out a case. He further submitted that since the deceased was bodily
weak even if the bitter taste and the bad smell of the poison were there
she might have not resisted while it was being administered.
28. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the
deceased had four brothers but only PW-1 was active and the other
brothers though had appeared on the scene, but never appeared in the
court. Also, we find that the PW-1 in his statement-in-chief had stated
that something had been forcefully administered to the deceased but in
his cross-examination he had stated that the deceased had told him that
she was suffering from cholera. Also, he had stated in his cross-
examination that when the doctor had scolded her then she had divulged
that in fact she had been administered something forcefully. This fact as
was placed before us was not believable because at the time when the
doctor i.e. Dr. D.R. Verma was looking after the deceased, he had opined
that she was in a very bad condition and that she had to be taken to
Kanpur Nagar and there was thus every possibility that she might not
have spoken at all. The PW-3, we find, had throughout been consistently
stating that something was mixed in water and then the deceased was
made to drink the same. This story becomes very different from the story
that the PW-1 had come up with that the deceased had told him while
she was alive that she had been made to eat something. In a case where
the guilty has to be punished with a punishment as grave as life
imprisonment, the prosecution case has to be dealt very cautiously and
when there was a definite digression in the cases taken by the PW-1 and
the PW-3 then the Court should deal with the matter very prudently and

30
CRLA No. 2343 of 1989
if there is inconsistency in the case taken by the prosecution witnesses
then it should lean in favour of the accused.
29. Also, we find that the poison “zinc phosphide” is not such a
poison which can be administered on the sly. It tastes bitter and has a
very bad smell. Thus if a person who is hale and hearty is administered
that poison then he or she would resist to the administration of the same
and would get injuries on her body and if he or she would resist
powerfully then the person who was administrating would also get
injured. In the instant case, the mother-in-law who was an elderly person
definitely would have got some injuries, but we find that no injuries
were there either on the mouth of the deceased or on the persons who
were trying to administer the poison because of the resistance put up by
the deceased.
30. What is more, we find that neither the viscera nor the report with
regard to it had been ever placed before the accused persons when their
statements were being recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Even
though questions were put with regard to poison being administered, no
question was put with regard to the viscera and its report. Definitely, as
per all the judgments which have been cited by the learned counsel for
appellants, the viscera report should therefore not be taken into account
at all.
31. What is more, the Court here again would lean in favour of the
appellants and would decide, not to look into the viscera report because
we find that after the viscera was sealed as per Dr. A.K. Tiwari, PW-4, it
was not certain as to where the viscera was kept. No entry with regard to

31
CRLA No. 2343 of 1989
its preservation in any register was produced before the Court. No one
was produced before the court, who would have, with any responsibility,
stated that he had taken the sealed viscera from the doctor who had
sealed it to the Office of the C.M.O. Also, no one from the C.M.O.
Office was produced to state that the viscera was kept in safe custody.
Only the PW-10, Constable Rajpal, was produced who had stated that he
had taken a sealed viscera to the forensic science laboratory. He did not
state as to from whose custody he had taken the sealed viscera and he
also did not state as to in whose hands he handed over the viscera. We
also find from the entire evidence which has been placed before us that
no one from the forensic science laboratory was produced to prove the
fact that in fact the viscera had come in a sealed state or whether it was
entered in some register and thereafter it was kept in the safe custody of
some malkhana and thereafter it was taken by the PW-10, Constable
Rajpal, to the laboratory. It was not shown that it was handed over by
some responsible person and thereafter it was got received in the
forensic science laboratory.
32. In view of what we have observed, we are definitely of the view
that no reliance can be placed on the viscera report. The viscera report
alone was a conclusive piece of evidence which would have gone to
show that murder was done by the accused persons by administering
poison and since the viscera report itself now becomes such an evidence
which as per us cannot be read in evidence, we are definitely of the
view that the appeal should be allowed and the accused be acquitted.

32
CRLA No. 2343 of 1989
33. So far as the injury on the body of the PW-3 is concerned, we find
that his case also is not very reliable as he himself had stated that on
12.01.1986, he had intermittently gone out of the house of his mausi and
had also dealt with shopkeepers. Meaning thereby that if there were any
injuries as were examined by the doctor, PW-6, then they could have
been self inflicted only to make out a case.
34. We are thus of the view that the appellants namely Ram Autar,
Rakesh Kumar Misra @ Doctor and Laddan Misra @ Mahesh be
acquitted of all the charges for which they were tried.
35. The Appeal is allowed . The judgment and order dated 07.12.1989
st
passed by the I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar in
Session Trial No. 180 of 1986 is hereby set-aside.
36. If the appellants are on bail, they need not surrender and their
sureties and bail bonds be discharged. The trial court record be sent back
to the concerned trial court.
(Jai Krishna Upadhyay,J.) (Siddhartha Varma,J.)
July, 3, 2026
M.S. Ansari
Digitally signed by :-
MOHD SAQIB ANSARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad