BASHINULLAH ALIAS MATRAversusSTATE OF U.P.

                                                    Reserved on 19.12.2025
                                                    Delivered on 12.05.2026


         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                  CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3271 of 1985

Bashiullah Alias Matru
                                                          .....Appellant(s)
                                  Versus

State of U.P.
                                                        .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)       : Kumar Ankit Srivastava (A.C.), H.N.
                                 Sharma
Counsel for Respondent(s)      : A.G.A.

Court No. - 89
                    HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.

1. This criminal appeal was filed on behalf of the appellant – Bashiullah

@ Matru, with a prayer to allow the appeal and acquit the appellant by

setting aside the judgment and order dated 4.9.1985 passed by Special and

Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr in Sessions Trial No

714 of 1984 (State vs. Bashiullah @ Matru), whereby the appellant was

convicted and sentenced to undergo seven years’ RI for offences under

Section 393 IPC read with Section 398 IPC and five years’ RI for offence

under Section 307 IPC. Both sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. It is to be noted that vide order of this Court dated 21.4.1988, the

appellant was directed to be released on bail. However, during pendency

of this appeal, it was listed several times but none appeared on behalf of

appellant. Accordingly, the Court vide order dated 11.8.2025 issued fresh

notice to the appellant, however, none appeared on behalf of appellant

and a report was submitted by CJM, Bulandshahr that no person named

Bashiullah (appellant) was residing at the given address. Since the
                                                        CRLA No. 3271 of 1985
                                2


appellant could not be traced out, the Court vide order dated 13.11

.2025 appointed Shri Kumar Ankit Srivastava as an Amicus Curiae

to argue this case on behalf of the appellant.


3. According to the prosecution case, as stated in the written report (Ext.

Ka-1) lodged by P.W.-5 Angan Lal s/o Baldev Saini, r/o Ahirpada, P.S.

Khurja, District Bulandshahr, on 25.08.1984 at about 8:15 P.M., 4 - 5

robbers entered the house of his brother Jhamman Lal with intention to

commit robbery. At that time, Khimman Devi w/o Jhamman Lal and her

daughters P.W.-2 Prakashwati and P.W.-3 Guddi were sitting in the

verandah where a lantern was burning due to dim electric light. One

robber put a knife on the neck of Khimman Devi, while another, armed

with a country-made pistol, threatened them. The robbers had uncovered

faces. One robber asked the two girls to go inside and bring valuables, but

all three women raised alarm. Hearing their cries, villagers including

P.W.-4 Bhagwan Sahay, P.W.-1 Murari, Madan Lal Sharma and Nand

Kishore Sharma reached there, due to which the robbers came out of the

house and started fleeing.


4. The villagers chased them, during which one robber fired from his

country-made pistol with intention to kill the chasers. The robbers ran

through Mohalla Ahirpara towards Burji Police Outpost. One accused fell

near the police outpost and was caught by the villagers after beating him.

A country-made pistol containing one empty cartridge in its barrel

(Material Ex.Ka-1) was recovered from him. Meanwhile, police personnel

from the outpost also reached the spot and took the accused along with

the recovered pistol to the police station. The accused did not disclose his

name and his associates managed to escape. The accused along with the

recovered country-made pistol was handed over to the police, and Angan
                                                       CRLA No. 3271 of 1985
                                 3


Lal lodged the FIR (Ex.Ka.-2) at Police Station Khurja on 25.08.1984 at

about 8:55 P.M. Check FIR was prepared by Head Constable Shital Singh

on the dictation of Angan Lal.


5. The country-made pistol and empty cartridge were sealed and recovery

memo was prepared. The accused continued pretending to be unconscious

even at the police station. As there were injuries on his body, he was sent

for medical examination. Investigation was taken over by P.W.-6 S.I.

Taran Singh, who recorded statements of the complainant and other

witnesses and thereafter inspected the place of occurrence. He prepared

the site plan of the house of Jhamman Lal (Ex.Ka-4) at the instance of

witnesses. A “Katar” (Ex.Ka-5) allegedly left behind by the robbers was

also recovered near the house of Vishan Swarup and taken into police

possession. The Investigating Officer also inspected the place where the

accused was apprehended by the villagers. On next day, accused was

interrogated by I.O. and he told his name Bashiullah @ Matru. After

concluding the investigation, charge sheet (Ex.Ka.-7) against this accused

was submitted on 14-10-24.


6. In support of its case, the prosecution examined Murari Lal as P.W.-1,

Smt. Prakashwati as P.W.-2, Smt. Guddi as P.W.-3, Bhagwan Sahai as

P.W.-4, Angan Lal as P.W.-5, and S.I. Taran Singh as P.W.-6. Head

Constable Shital Singh was examined as C.W.-1. No witness was

examined in defence by the accused. After completion of investigation,

the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where charges under

Sections 307, 393 and 398 IPC were framed against the accused. The

accused denied the charges and claimed trial.


7. The Trial Court found that all the prosecution witnesses supported the
                                                        CRLA No. 3271 of 1985
                               4


prosecution case except P.W.-1 Murari Lal and informant P.W.-5 Angan

Lal to the extent that they could not identify the accused in the dock.

However, both these witnesses supported the prosecution story regarding

the occurrence and arrest of the accused at the spot. The Trial Court held

that there was no prior enmity between the witnesses and the accused and,

therefore, there was no reason for false implication. Relying upon the

evidence on record, the Trial Court concluded that the accused was

apprehended at the place of occurrence itself and accordingly held him

guilty for offences punishable under Section 393 read with Section 398

IPC and Section 307 IPC.


8. Shri Kumar Ankit Srivastava, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant

argued that P.W.-1 Murari Lal and informant P.W.-5 Angan Lal did not

fully support the prosecution case as they failed to identify the accused in

Court. It was further argued that the accused was not previously known to

the witnesses and, in absence of any test identification parade, his identity

could not be said to have been proved beyond doubt. It was also

submitted that the accused, in his statement, had specifically stated that he

was arrested from Bulandshahr bus station and was falsely implicated in

the present case by the police personnel. On the strength of the aforesaid

submissions, it was argued that the appellant-accused is innocent and

deserves acquittal.


9. Shri Acharya Rajesh Tripathi, learned A.G.A., on the other hand,

argued that the prosecution witnesses have consistently supported the

prosecution case regarding the incident, apprehension of the accused at

the spot and recovery of country-made pistol from his possession. It was

submitted that merely because P.W.-1 Murari Lal and informant P.W.-5
                                                        CRLA No. 3271 of 1985
                                5


Angan Lal could not identify the accused in Court after lapse of

considerable time, the entire prosecution case does not become doubtful,

particularly when there was no previous enmity between the parties. It

was further argued that the accused was apprehended by villagers

immediately after the occurrence while fleeing from the spot after firing

at the chasers and was handed over to the police along with the recovered

weapon. The findings recorded by the Trial Court are based on reliable

evidence and do not suffer from any illegality or perversity, therefore, the

appeal deserves to be dismissed.


10. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for

the parties and perused the records.


11. Before discussing the evidence on record, it would be appropriate to

notice certain undisputed facts emerging from the case. Firstly, the

appellant and the prosecution witnesses were not previously known to

each other and there was no prior enmity between them. Secondly, the

incident initially took place inside the house where P.W.-2 Smt.

Prakashwati and P.W.-3 Guddi were present along with their mother, and

thereafter the incident continued outside the house when the accused

along with his associates attempted to flee after alarm was raised by the

women and the villagers started chasing them. Thirdly, the occurrence

took place at about 8:15 P.M., the accused was apprehended by the

villagers near the police outpost along with a country-made pistol, and the

FIR was promptly lodged within about 40 minutes at about 8:55 P.M. The

cumulative reading of the aforesaid circumstances leaves no reasonable

ground to infer false implication of the appellant.


12. So far as the argument regarding identification of the accused is
                                                        CRLA No. 3271 of 1985
                               6


concerned, all the prosecution witnesses including P.W.-2 Smt.

Prakashwati and P.W.-3 Guddi have consistently stated that they did not

know the accused prior to the incident and had identified him after he was

apprehended by the villagers near the police outpost at a short distance

from the place of occurrence. Except P.W.-1 Murari Lal and P.W.-5

Angan Lal, no other witness failed to identify the accused in Court. Even

the aforesaid two witnesses, who expressed their inability to identify the

accused in Court, have fully corroborated the prosecution story on all

material particulars including the occurrence, chase, apprehension of one

accused near the police outpost and recovery of country-made pistol from

him. Interestingly, from perusal of the depositions of witnesses, it also

appears that the defence itself did not seriously challenge the identity of

the accused during trial by seeking proper verification of his identity from

the witnesses in Court. Though an attempt was made during cross-

examination of P.W.-2, she successfully identified the accused in the

dock.


13. A test identification parade is ordinarily required in cases where the

accused is not previously known to the witnesses and his identity is

doubtful or where the accused is arrested subsequently during

investigation. However, in the present case, the accused was apprehended

by the villagers immediately after the occurrence while fleeing from the

spot and was handed over to the police along with the recovered weapon.

The witnesses had sufficient opportunity to see the accused during the

incident as well as at the time of his apprehension. In such circumstances,

absence of test identification parade does not create any dent in the

prosecution case.
                                                      CRLA No. 3271 of 1985
                               7


14. In view of the discussions made above, this Court finds no illegality

or perversity in the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court. The

findings recorded by the Trial Court are based on proper appreciation of

evidence available on record and do not call for any interference by this

Court.


15. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 4.9.198

5 passed by Special and Additional District & Sessions Judge,

Bulandshahr in Sessions Trial No.714 of 1984 (State vs. Bashiullah @

Matru) convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 393 r/w 398

IPC and Section 307 IPC, is hereby upheld and the present appeal is

dismissed.


16. It is further noticed that the whereabouts of the appellant were not

known during pendency of the appeal and, therefore, an Amicus Curiae

was appointed on his behalf to assist the Court.


17. The Trial Court is directed to take all appropriate steps, including

coercive measures, for apprehending the appellant so as to send him to

prison for serving out the remaining sentence awarded to him. In case,

despite all possible efforts, the appellant still remains untraceable, the

Trial Court shall issue permanent warrant against him and necessary entry

thereof shall also be made in the General Diary of the concerned police

station so that whenever the appellant is apprehended, he may be sent to

prison for serving the remainder of his sentence.


18. Let the copy of this judgment as well as the trial court’s record be

transmitted to the concerned Trial Court forthwith for necessary

compliance. Compliance report be submitted to this Court at the earliest.
                                                                                            CRLA No. 3271 of 1985
                                                                   8


                                    Office is directed to keep the compliance report on record.


                                    19. Shri Kumar Ankit Srivastava, learned Amicus Curiae, who has given

                                    his valuable assistance to the Court, shall be paid fees as admissible to an

                                    Amicus Curiae, as per rule.



                                                                                            (Anil Kumar-X,J.)
                                    May 12, 2026
                                    SK




Digitally signed by :-
SUSHEEL KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad