JAI PAL AND OTHERversusSTATE

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                    CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 473 of 1988

Jai Pal And Other
                                                          .....Appellant(s)
                                  Versus

State
                                                        .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)       : Ashutosh Gupta, Punit Kesarwani,
                                 Rajul Bhargava, Vandana Gupta
Counsel for Respondent(s)      : A.G.A.

Court No. - 82
                 HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

1. The instant criminal appeal, has been filed by the accused-appellants
namely Jaipal, Bani Singh, Ramesh, Ranvir, and Ram Charan residents of
village Sihora, Police Station Raya, District Mathura against the
Judgement and order of conviction dated 16.12.1987 passed by IInd
Additional Sessions Judge, Mathura in Sessions Trial No. 516 of
1987 whereby sentencing the appellants except Jaipal under Sections
147, 323/149 I.P.C., and the accused appellant Jaipal has been sentenced
vide order dated 06.01.1988 under Sections 323/149 I.P.C., whereby all
the appellants have been released on probation of good conduct subject to
their furnishing bonds (personal and two sureties for a sum of Rs. 2000/-
each).

2. During the pendency of the instant appeal, the accused appellants nos.
nos. 2, 3 and 5 namely Bani Singh, Ramesh and Ram Charan have died
vide report of concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate, therefore the instant
appeal as against them have already been abated vide order dated
23.09.2025 and 04.11.2025 passed by co-ordinate Bench of of this court.

3. Accordingly, the instant appeal is being heard as against the appellant
no.1 and 4 namely, Jai Pal and Ranvir.

4. As per the prosecution case, the informant namely, Dhiri Singh gave a
written tehrir before the Station House Officer, Police Staion Raya,
District Mathura with the averments that his real brother namely, Devi
Singh and Onkar Singh are prosecution witnesses in a case under Section
302, 201, 364, 120-B I.P.C., and in which Ram Gopal real brother of
accused-appellant Jaipal, Kishan real brother of accused-appellant
Ramveer are accused and that the accused-appellants have threatened him
on 12.03.1985 with respect to such threatening a case under Section 504,
506 I.P.C., was registered. On 7/8.11.1985 in the night at about 10 P.M.
the informant's brother Devi Singh was going from his house to old
house, the accused appellants had surrounded him and exhorted to kill
him. The accused-appellant Jaipal fired upon him, accused-appellant Ram
Charan has assaulted him with halberd on account of which, he became
injured, on alarm, several persons came on the spot and the injured was
taken to hospital. The accused persons ran away.Upon the aforesaid
                                                         CRLA No. 473 of 1988
                               2

averments, a first information report was lodged on 07.11.1985 at about
07:30 A.M. in Case Crime No. 346A under Sections 147, 148, 324 I.P.C.,
at Police Station Raya, District Mathura against the accused-appellants.
Thereafter the matter was entrusted for investigation and charge sheet was
filed against the accused-appellants under Section 147, 148, 323 I.P.C.
Upon which cognizance was taken and the case was registered as
Sessions Trial No. 316 of 1987 (State Vs. Jaipal and others) under
Sections 147, 148, 324 I.P.C Police Station Raya, District Mathura
Thereafter charges were framed against the accused-appellants under
Sections 147, 307/149/, 323/149 I.P.C.

5. During the trial, the prosecution has relied upon following documentary
evidence:-

(i) Written report

(ii) F.I.R..

(ii) Medical reports

(iii) Charge sheet

6. On the other hand, following were the oral evidence/prosecution
witnesses:-

(i) Dhiri Singh ( P.W.1)

(ii) Devi Singh (P.W.2).

(iii) Ratna (W.3).

(iv) Hakim Singh (P.W.4).

(v) Lachha

7. P.W.1 is the injured namely first informant. He has narrated the case of
the prosecution of fact. P.W.2 is injured who has also supported the case
of prosecution, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5 are the eye-witnesses of the
incident and they have corroborated the prosecution version.

8. The prosecution evidence has been confronted to the accused for
recording his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein all the accused
persons have denied the prosecution story and the manner of incident.
They have denied the allegations and have stated that they have been
falsely implicated.

9. After adducing of oral as well as documentary evidence before the trial
Court, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the guilt of the accused-
appellants is established beyond reasonable doubt and therefore has
convicted the accused-appellants nos. 2 to 5 under Sections 148, 323/149
and accused Bani Singh-appellant no.1 has been convicted under Section
147, 323/149 I.P.C., and have convicted them accordingly but instead of
directing the accused-appellants for actual imprisonment, they were
released on furnishing bonds (personal bond and two sureties for a sum of
Rs. 2000/- each) under the provisions of the U.P.Probation of First
                                                        CRLA No. 473 of 1988
                               3

Offenders for a period of one year for maintainable peace and good
behaviour.

10. Challenging the impugned Judgement and order of conviction and
sentence, learned counsel for the accused-appellants submits that the
Court of Sessions has erred in recording the findings of conviction and
sentence against the accused-appellants inasmuch as the testimony of
witnesses are not reliable and the accused-appellants have been falsely
implicated. He further submits that the basis of enmity in which the
prosecution has alleged that the accused persons had some and caused
injuries in the night has not been established that the evidence produced
by the prosecution is not reliable and that the conditions as well as
injuries of the doctor were exaggerated by the doctor under some
influence. Learned counsel further argued that there was no source of
light at the time of incident thus the accused persons could not have been
identified. Thus, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court is
perverse. It is thus contended that the accused-appellants have been
falsely roped in the present case and is therefore liable to be acquitted
from the charges levelled against them.

11. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the contentions
advanced by learned counsel for the accused-appellants and submits, the
learned trial Court, after considering the evidence available on record,
recorded the findings of conviction in accordance with law. Therefore,
there is no illegality or perversity in the judgement and order of
conviction passed by the trial Court and warrants no interference by this
Court.

12. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Anil Kushwaha,
learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record including
the original record of the trial Court.

13. So far as the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the
appellants that testimony of witnesses are not reliable and the accused-
appellants have been falsely implicated as well as the basis of enmity in
which the prosecution has alleged that the accused persons had come and
caused injuries in the night has not been established and that the
conditions as well as injuries of the injured were exaggerated by the
doctor under some influence are concerned, it may be submitted that the
testimony of the witnesses are reliable and nothing incriminating could be
pointed out to demonstrate that the accused-appellants have been falsely
implicated. The incident alleged to have taken place at about 10:00 P.M.
in the night without there being any source of light therefore it cannot be
said that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not reliable. Thus the
prosecution case is proved beyond reasonable doubt.

14. Upon evaluation of evidence so led in the matter, I find no perversity
in the judgment so as to interfere with the findings returned by the court
concerned, inasmuch as the conclusions drawn by the trial Judge
concerned are clearly permissible in view of the evidence placed on
record. No misreading or omission of evidence is pointed out. I find that
neither any triable issue is raised before me in this appeal nor any
perversity is shown in the judgment under challenge before this Court,
which may persuade this Court to set aside the judgment passed by the
learned trial Court.
                                                                                            CRLA No. 473 of 1988
                                                                   4

                                    15. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

                                    16. It is also noticeable that since the accused-appellants have been
                                    released on furnishing a personal bonds (personal bond and two sureties)
                                    for a sum of Rs. 2000/- each under the provisions of Probation of First
                                    Offenders for a period one year to maintain peace and good behaviour and
                                    this appeal is pending since last more than 38 years and nothing has been
                                    brought on record to show that the appellants have acted otherwise. Thus
                                    the sureties are discharged.

                                    17. The trial Court record along with the copy of this order be transmitted
                                    to the court concerned forthwith.



                                                                                 (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.)
                                    May 7, 2026
                                    S.Ali




Digitally signed by :-
SHAUKAT ALI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad