Krishna Kumar Pandey @ Babloo vs State Of U.P. on 4 February, 2020

[Cites 8, Cited by 3]

Allahabad High Court

Krishna Kumar Pandey @ Babloo vs State Of U.P. on 4 February, 2020

Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 ALL 187

1. The appellant, Krishna Kumar Pandey @ Babloo, has preferred the present criminal appeal, assailing the impugned judgment and order dated 23.09.2003 delivered by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge/ F.T.C.-5, District Pratapgarh in Session Trial No. 238 of 2002, State Vs. Krishna Kumar Pandey & another, arising out of Crime No. 124 of 2001, Police Station Jethwara, under Sections 302, 506 I.P.C. read with Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 25/27 & 30 of Arms Act.

2. The learned trial court has convicted the appellant, Krishna Kumar Pandey @ Babloo for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. to serve out the imprisonment for life. Fine of an amount of Rs.20,000/- has also been imposed. He has also been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 25/27 of Arms Act and convicted with rigorous imprisonment for four years. He has been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 506 I.P.C. and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act. All the sentence were directed to run concurrently.

3. The co-accused Ramesh Chandra Pandey, who is the father of appellant, Krishna Kumar Pandey, has been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 30 of Arms Act.

4. It is mentioned in the grounds of appeal that the investigation of this case is biased and tainted. The F.I.R. is ante timed. No independent witness has supported the prosecution version. The witnesses produced by the prosecution are related, interested and partisan witnesses. The prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. There is no motive for commission of crime. The medical evidence has not supported the prosecution case. There are major inconsistencies and contradictions in oral evidence adduced by the witnesses. The trial court has committed illegality in disbelieving the defence version. There is no proper compliance of Section 313 Cr.P.C. The findings recorded by the trial court are perverse and consequently the impugned judgment and order delivered by it is illegal, unjust and improper.

5. We have heard the learned A.G.A.

6. None is responding on behalf of appellant.

7. We have also perused the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record of the trial court.

8. As per the prosecution version narrated in the F.I.R. (Ex.Ka.-1), the complainant, Umesh Chandra Pandey lodged the F.I.R. on 07.09.2001. He went on 07.09.2001 at the residence of his uncle (Phupha), Shri Ram Kishore Tiwari, S/o Shri Paras Nath Tiwari. His uncle was having conversation with him and his aunt(Bua). The deceased was sitting at his shop of beetle. In the meanwhile, the accused-appellant, Krishna Kumar Pandey @ Babloo, S/o Ramesh Chandra Pandey brought his scooter from inside of his house and parked it outside his house. He brought licensed gun of his father and shot fire at 2:00 p.m. on 07.09.2001 in the stomach of Ram Kishore Tiwari, the deceased, who succumbed to gun shot injuries sustained by him. The deceased, Ram Kishore Tiwari was issue less and accused-appellant, Krishna Kumar Pandey @ Babloo wanted to obtain his property. The accused-appellant, Krishna Kumar Pandey @ Babloo threatened the deceased by asking the deceased that transfer his property in his favour otherwise he will eliminate both his Phupha and Bua. He lodged the F.I.R. after leaving the dead body of his Phupha on the spot. The witness, Tribhuwan Nath Pandey, Girja Shankar Pandey and Ram Narayan Pandey as well as other residents of village saw the accused, while he was fleeing away from the place of occurrence.

9. On the basis of written report of complainant, Crime No. 124 of 2001 was registered at 2:10 p.m. for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 506 I.PC. read with section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act. On the basis of written report submitted by the complainant, G.D. of registration of crime was prepared for the aforesaid offences.

10. The Investigating Officer inspected the place of occurrence and took in possession the dead body of the deceased. He prepared inquest report (Ex.Ka.-2) on the same day at 14:30 hours until 15:40 p.m. He collected plain and blood stained soil from the place of occurrence and prepared recovery memo (Ex.Ka.-3) and some part of Baan of cot. He sealed dead body of the deceased and sent it to Sadar Hospital, Pratapgarh for autopsy.

11. The Investigating officer recorded statements of witnesses. He recovered license gun and three live cartridges and one empty cartridge from the possession of accused-appellant, Krishna Kumar Pandey @ Babloo. The concerned police personnel prepared G.D.(Ex.Ka.-8) at 23:50 hours on 09.09.2002 regarding recovery of aforesaid articles. He sent these articles to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Mahanagar, Lucknow after obtaining permission from District Magistrate. He submitted charge sheet against the appellant as well as against the co-accused, his father. Postmortem report was prepared (Ex.Ka.-5) by the concerned doctor after autopsy of the deceased. G.D. (Ex.Ka.-8A) No. 16 at 8:50 hours dated 10.01.2001 and G.D. (Ex.Ka.-9) were prepared regarding submission of gun and cartridges and plain and blood stained soil and Baan of cot in forensic laboratory.

12. G.D. (Ex.Ka.-10) was prepared regarding receipt of aforesaid articles by Constable Shaktidhar Dubey. The aforesaid articles were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory through letter (Ex.Ka.-11) written by Circle Officer, Sadar, Pratapgarh to Forensic Science Laboratory. Letter (Ex.Ka.-12) was written by Circle officer to the District Magistrate, District Pratapgarh for obtaining permission for comparison/ chemical analysis of aforesaid articles. The District Magistrate, Pratapgarh granted prosecution sanction (Ex.Ka.-13) against the accused-appellant, Krishna Kumar Pandey @ Babloo and the co-accused Ramesh Chandra Pandey.

13. Ex.Ka.-17 is the letter sent to C.M.O. for autopsy was written by R.I. The Investigating Officer prepared site plan (Ex.Ka.-20). The Joint Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Mahanagar, Lucknow forwarded his report (Ex.Ka.-21) after chemical analysis and comparison of gun and cartridges. A separate report (Ex.Ka.-22) was forwarded by the Joint Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Mahanagar, Lucknow to Circle Officer, Sadar, Pratapgarh regarding chemical analysis of clothes of the deceased, plain and blood stained soil and Baan of cot. Recovery memo (Ex.Ka.-4) was prepared regarding arrest and recovery of aforesaid gun and cartridges from the possession of accused persons.

14. The concerned Judicial Magistrate committed this case to the court of Sessions. The learned trial court of Additional Sessions Judge/ F.T.C.-5, Pratapgarh framed charges against the accused-appellant, Krishna Kumar Pandey @ Babloo on 05.12.2002 for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 506 I.P.C. and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act. A separate charge under Section 25/27 of Arms Act was also framed against the appellant.

15. The learned trial court has also framed charge against co-accused Ramesh Chandra Pandey on the same day for the offence punishable under Section 30 of Arms Act.

16. Both the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

17. The prosecution has examined P.W.1-Umesh Chandra Pandey (complainant), P.W.2-Rajendra Prasad Pandey; P.W.3-Tribhuwan Nath Pandey; P.W.4-Smt. Shayama Devi, who is the wife of the deceased Ram Kishore Tiwari regarding facts and circumstances of the occurrence. P.W.5-Arjun Prasad Pandey has proved recovery memo (Ex.Ka.-2) of plain and blood stained soil. P.W.6, Constable Vijay Narayan Chaudhary has proved arrest and recovery of gun and cartridges from the possession of accused-appellant, Krishna Kumar Pandey @ Babloo. P.W.7, Dr. R. P. Chaubey has proved postmortem report. P.W.8, Head Constable Tarak Nath Jha Pandey has proved Check F.I.R. (Ex.Ka.-6) and G.D. (Ex.Ka.-7) of registration of crime. He also prepared G.D. (Ex.Ka.-8) on the basis of recovery memo (Ex.Ka.-4) regarding arrest of the accused and recovery of gun and cartridges. P.W.9-Constable Roshan Nath Ojha proved this fact that he submitted plain and blood stained soil and pellets recovered from the dead body of the deceased at Forensic Science Laboratory. P.W.10, D. K. Upahdyay is the Investigating Officer.

18. The learned trial court has recorded detailed statements of both the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in the form of question and answer.

19. The accused-appellant, Krishna Kumar Pandey @ Babloo has stated that he has falsely been implicated in this crime. He has denied that he shot fire on 07.09.2001 on the deceased, Ram Kishore Tiwari in presence of P.W.1. He has further stated that the complainant lodged F.I.R. on the basis of concocted and false facts. He was arrested by the police party from Kanpur and not from the place shown by the police party. The Investigating Officer prepared forged documents which are ante timed and ante dated and submitted charge sheet against him. The witnesses have adduced false evidence against him. The report submitted by the Forensic Science Laboratory is also forged.

20. The appellant has stated in additional statement and answered to question No. 19 & 20 that he has been implicated in this case by hatching conspiracy due to enmity. The witnesses are interested and family members of the deceased. He has also stated that the deceased Ram Kishore Tiwari was a criminal and he was expelled from his earlier native place/ residence. He was having old enmity with his in-laws and family. The deceased was an informer of police personnel of Police Station Jaithwara. The deceased was used to sold Ganja, Bhang at his shop and he was having his so many enemies and he was murdered by unknown persons. He was arrested on 08.09.2001 from Kanpur when he was getting treatment at the house of his uncle.

21. The co-accused, Ramesh Chandra Pandey has stated that on the date of occurrence, i.e., 07.09.2001 at 2:00 p.m. he was present in the court of Civil Judge, Kunda on the post of Reader and he was present and working in that court. He has further stated that his gun, license and cartridges were kept at his residence at Kunda, which is at a distance of 40 kilometers from his native place. His son, Krishna Kumar Pandey @ Babloo had not fired from his gun.

22. The co-accused has answered question No.6 and stated that police personnel contacted him on 07.09.2001 at 5:30 p.m. in Kunda and asked him regarding gun and license. They received gun, cartridges and license from him and brought it at police station Jethwara. He has further stated that his son was getting treatment at the house of his uncle at Kanpur. The police personnel on the next day brought him by a jeep at Kanpur and arrested his son. His arrest was falsely shown on another place on 10.09.2001. Ramesh Chandra Pandey has also stated that he was residing in a rented accommodation at Kunda.

23. The accused persons produced D.W.1-Moorat Singh, S/o Uttam Singh and D.W.2-Yogesh Kumar Upadhyay, Advocate, S/o Heera Lal Upadhyay as defence witnesses.

24. The learned trial court has appreciated and analyzed the evidence of prosecution and accused persons and delivered the impugned judgment and order.

25. We have perused the impugned judgment and order and record of trial court.

26. We have perused the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.4, who are witnesses of fact. All these witnesses have witnessed the incident committed the appellant, Krishna Kumar Pandey @ Babloo. P.W.2 and P.W.3 have proved inquest report of the deceased.

27. The learned trial court has found that place of occurrence is situated at a distance of one kilometer from police station Jethwara. The complainant-P.W.1 has lodged the F.I.R. at 2:10 p.m. immediately after the incident occurred on 07.09.2001 at 2:00 p.m. P.W.1 has proved this fact that he went to meet his Phupha, the deceased. He was having conversation with the deceased at his beetle shop in presence of his Bua. The appellant, Krishna Kumar Pandey @ Babloo brought his scooter and started it twice and then parked it in front of his house. Then he brought licensed gun of his father and shot fire on the stomach of the deceased. The deceased succumbed to firearm injury sustained by him. He has corroborated the facts narrated by him in Check F.I.R.

28. P.W.1 has further stated that the deceased purchased land and constructed his house at the place of his in-laws and he was selling beetle in a small Gomti at the point of time of occurrence. The house of Krishna Kumar Pandey @ Babloo was situated near the house of deceased and another house was situated inside of the village. He has proved topography of the place of occurrence also.

29. A detailed cross-examination was conducted on behalf of the accused persons, but no material contradiction was elicited from him. The learned trial court has found that in this case prompt F.I.R. was lodged by the complainant, P.W.1. He has discarded the argument of learned defence counsel that F.I.R. was lodged on the dictation of Sub Inspector. No material contradiction was elicited regarding presence of P.W.1 at the place of occurrence on date and time of incident committed by the appellant, Krishna Kumar Pandey @ Babloo. The learned trial court has considered the statement of P.W.1 that the deceased was issue less and the accused was interested to obtain property of the deceased and he threatened him also.

30. The learned trial court has also analyzed the evidence of P.W.4-Smt. Shyama Devi, who is the wife of the deceased, Ram Kishore Tiwari. P.W.4 has disclosed this fact that the appellant, Krishna Kumar Pandey @ Babloo sent a letter before the incident and he also threatened the deceased one year ago that both P.W.4 and the deceased should transfer their house in his favour, otherwise he will eliminate them.

31. P.W.4 has further stated that she brought the letter sent by the appellant, Krishna Kumar Pandey @ Babloo at the police station. He was scolded by the police personnel and released at this point of time. The deceased, Ram Kishore Tiwari made complaint against the appellant at the police station. P.W.3-Tribhuwan Nath Pandey also corroborated these facts stated by P.W.4.

32. Therefore, the learned trial court has recorded finding that the appellant, Krishna Kumar Pandey @ Babloo was having old enmity with the deceased and transfer of property of the deceased and P.W.4 was the motive for committing incident of this case. The prosecution was able to prove presence of P.W.1 and P.W.4 at the point of time of incident of this crime.

33. The learned trial court has also considered the argument of learned defence counsel that no independent witness was produced by the prosecution to prove the facts of the incident. The learned trial court has quoted expositions of law propounded by Hon'ble Apex court regarding non production of independent witness and regarding production of related and interested witness.

34. The learned trial court has found that the accused-appellant, Krishna Kumar Pandey @ Babloo was known to witness, P.W.1(complainant), P.W.3-Tribhuwan Nath Pandey and P.W.4-Smt. Shyama Devi from prior to the incident. The accused was residing near the house of the deceased, therefore, there was no case of mistaken identity. The learned trial court has also evaluated the evidence of P.W.1-Umesh Chandra Pandey and P.W.3-Tribhuwan Nath Pandey regarding facts and circumstances, in which, the appellant, Krishna Kumar Pandey @ Babloo fled away from the place of occurrence.

35. The learned trial court has analyzed and evaluated the evidence of P.W.10-Investigating Officer, Shri Dhirendra Kumar Upadhyay and omissions made by him, but no material contradictions were elicited during his cross-examination regarding the fact that investigation conducted by him was biased and tainted as argued by the learned defence counsel.

36. P.W.10-Shri Dhirendra Kumar Upadhyay has proved recovery memo of plain and blood stained soil and arrest of accused-appellant, Krishna Kumar Pandey @ Babloo and recovery of gun and cartridges from his possession. He has also proved this fact that these articles were compared and chemically analyzed at Forensic Science Laboratory.

37. The learned trial court has also considered the defence version stated by the appellant, Krishna Kumar Pandey @ Babloo and co-accused, Ramesh Chandra Pandey that he was getting treatment at the house of his uncle, Suresh Chandra Pandey at Kanpur and he was arrested in the facts and circumstances as stated by the co-accused Ramesh Chandra Pandey. But Suresh Chandra Pandey was not produced as defence witness regarding the fact that accused-appellant, Krishna Kumar Pandey @ Babloo was arrested from his house. The learned trial court has considered this fact that no telegram was sent by Suresh Chandra Pandey when the appellant, Krishna Kumar Pandey @ Babloo was allegedly arrested from his house by the police party of P.W.10 in presence of co-accused Ramesh Chandra Pandey.

38. The learned trial court has also considered this argument of learned defence counsel that gun and cartridges were recovered on 09.09.2001, but they were kept until 23.10.2001 by P.W.10 in his possession. The learned trial court has found that these articles, plain and blood stained soil and pellets recovered from the dead body of the deceased Ram Kishore Tiwari and his clothes were sent on 23.10.2001 by the Circle Officer, Sadar to Forensic Science Laboratory through his letter (Ex.Ka.-11). The omissions made by the Circle Officer was a mere irregularity and no tampering was made at his hands.

39. The learned trial court has also discarded the arguments of learned defence counsel regarding the fact that P.W.10 had not prepared site plan of the place, from where, the appellant, Krishna Kumar Pandey @ Babloo was arrested and gun and cartridges were recovered from his possession. Likewise, this fact was also considered that P.W.4, widow of the deceased covered the body of the deceased during incident, but her clothes were not soaked with the blood. The learned trial court has also considered this fact that P.W.1 has stated that the accused-appellant fired shot from gun from blank point range, but the postmortem report(Ex.Ka.-5) has not disclosed ante mortem injury of such nature.

40. The learned trial court has perused the post mortem report (Ex.Ka.-5) and observed that lacerated wound of size 3.0 c.m. x 2.5 c.m. was found by Dr. R. P. Chaubey (P.W.7). P.W.7 has proved this fact that margins of firearm injury were inverted and blackening was present all around the wound. Small intestine was lacerated, liquid was coming out from small intestine. P.W.7 has opined that death of the deceased was caused by hemorrhage due to ante mortem firearm injury. No material contradiction was elicited during cross-examination of the doctor (P.W.7).

41. The learned trial court has found evidence of P.W.1-complainant and P.W.4, the widow of the deceased, trustworthy, cogent, reliable and acceptable. P.W.7 has recovered wading and rubber material from the dead body of the deceased, which might have decreased force of fired shot, therefore, there was no occasion of presence of exit wound, as P.W.7 has found wading and rubber material from the abdominal cavity. The cavity was filled with two liters of blood.

42. The Joint Director, Forensic Science Laboratory has sent report (Ex.Ka.-21) and opined that gun powder and lead was present in the barrel of 12 bore gun No. 2307 and empty cartridge sent for chemical examination was fired from this gun, which was recovered from the possession of the accused-appellant, Krishna Kumar Pandey @ Babloo. T.C.1 and T.C.2 cartridges were fired at Forensic Science Laboratory and mark of firing pin was found same, both on empty cartridge sent by police station Jethwara and T.C.1 and T.C.2.

43. The sealed wading and rubber material was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, which is mentioned in report (Ex.Ka.-22), where plain and blood stained soil as well as blood stained Baan of cot and clothes of the deceased were chemically examined. Human blood was found on Baan of cot, dhoti, and wading and rubber material found in abdominal cavity of the deceased. Blood was found disintegrated on the blood stained soil, underwear of the deceased and watch.

44. These circumstances, as stated by P.W.7 that he had not found any exit wound or pellets in the abdominal cavity are not material. The learned trial court has recorded finding that the deceased, Ram Kishore Tiwari, sustained ante mortem firearm injury and he succumbed to this injury sustained by him.

45. As far as, this fact is mentioned in G.D.(Ex.Ka.-8A) that pellets were sealed in an envelop, it may be possible that the concerned police personnel mentioned wading and rubber material as pellets, which is the omission of the concerned police personnel. P.W.9, Roshan Nath Ojha has stated accordingly on the basis of fact mentioned in G.D.(Ex.Ka.-8A). The accused-appellant is not benefited with this fact stated by P.W.9 or by his omission to mention wading and rubber material in G.D.(Ex.Ka.-8A).

46. The witnesses, P.W.6-Constable Vijay Narayan Chaudhary and P.W.10, the Investigating officer, Dhirendra Kumar Upadhyay, have proved arrest of accused-appellant, Krishna Kumar Pandey @ Babloo and recovery of gun, live cartridges and empty cartridge from his possession, which were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory.

47. The learned trial court has also evaluated evidence of P.W.7-Dr. R. P. Chaubey and P.W.4-Smt. Shyama Devi regarding meal taken by the deceased and semi digested liquid food found in stomach. The learned trial court has observed that P.W.4 is an uneducated lady and she has disclosed time of taking food by the deceased on the basis of her memory and assumptions. Dr. R. P. Chaubey (P.W.7) has stated that the deceased took his food two hours prior to the incident as opined by him. The learned trial court has discarded the argument of the learned defence counsel in this regard that there is any contradiction in medical and ocular evidence.

48. The learned trial court has specifically mentioned in the impugned judgment that P.W.2-Rajendra Prasad Pandey, P.W.3-Tribhuwan Nath Pandey and P.W.5-Arjun Prasad Pandey are not the eye witness of the incident committed by the accused-appellant, Krishna Kumar Pandey @ Babloo. They might have stated to have seen the incident corroborating version of the prosecution, if they were so interested being Khandani of the deceased.

49. The learned trial court has cautiously appreciated and analyzed the evidence of eye witnesses, P.W.1-complainant and P.W.4-widow of the deceased, and also found that no material contradiction was elicited during their cross-examination. P.W.2-Rajendra Prasad Pandey is the witness of inquest report. Likewise, P.W.3-Tribhuwan Nath Pandey reached, when the appellant, Krishna Kumar Pandey @ Babloo was leaving the place of occurrence, while gun was hanging over on his shoulder and he was sitting on his scooter. He only heard noise of fire and reached at the place of occurrence and saw that Ram Kishore Tiwari sustained firearm injury. He has stated regarding threat given by the accused-appellant to the deceased one year ago. P.W.5-Arjun Prasad Pandey is the witness of recovery of blood stained and plain soil from the place of occurrence, of which, recovery memo (Ex.Ka.-2) was prepared by the Investigating Officer.

50. The learned trial court has discarded the defence evidence adduced by D.W.2-Yogesh Kumar Upadhyay, Advocate, by recording the finding that there was no occasion for the co-accused, Ramesh Chandra Pandey to bring gun with him at the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kunda, where, co-accused, Ramesh Chandra Pandey was employed as Reader of that court. The learned trial court has discarded the evidence of D.W.2 in correct perspectives, because he has stated that he is a legal practitioner at Kunda and returned back home daily at 5:30 to 6:00 p.m. He has accepted that no other employee or advocate was present while police personnel arrested the co-accused, Ramesh Chandra Pandey in the facts and circumstances stated by him.

51. On the other hand, the learned trial court has considered the recovery memo of gun, license, three live cartridges and one empty cartridge and evaluated the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.4, P.W.6 and P.W.7. The learned trial court has specifically recorded the finding that the co-accused, Ramesh Chandra Pandey was not arrested on 07.09.2001 at Kunda and gun, license and cartridges were not recovered from him, but these articles were recovered at the bridge of Bakulahi river in vicinity of Gulab Katra, where accused-appellant, Krishna Kumar Pandey @ Babloo was in possession of these articles and he was arrested from that place.

52. The learned trial court has acquitted the co-accused, Ramesh Chandra Pandey on the basis of deficit evidence available against him being licensee of gun recovered from possession of his son, Krishna Kumar Pandey @ Babloo.

53. As far as evidence of D.W.1 is concerned, the co-accused, Ramesh Chandra Pandey, who is father of the appellant, Krishna Kumar Pandey @ Babloo, has stated in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that his son, Krishna Kumar Pandey @ Babloo was arrested from the house of his uncle, where he was getting treatment, whereas, D.W.1-Moorat Singh, S/o Uttam Singh, has stated that Krishna Kumar Pandey @ Babloo was arrested by the police party while he was seeing cricket match in the ground of his school at 5:30 evening on 08.09.2001.

54. D.W.1 has accepted in his cross-examination that he never saw the house of Suresh Chandra Pandey, who is brother of co-accused, Ramesh Chandra Pandey and uncle of the appellant, Krishna Kumar Pandey @ Babloo. The facts and circumstances of arrest and recovery of gun and cartridges has been proved by the prosecution by means of evidence of P.W.6 and P.W.10 beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the evidence adduced by D.W.1 is not acceptable and rightly discarded by the learned trial court in correct perspectives. The recovery of gun and cartridges was made on 09.09.2001 from the possession of the appellant, Krishna Kumar Pandey @ Babloo by the police party of P.W.6 and P.W.10.

55. The learned trial court has also recorded finding that there was no old enmity of the complainant, deceased or P.W.4, his widow with Krishna Kumar Pandey @ Babloo, the appellant, and the co-accused, Ramesh Chandra Pandey or with the witnesses, Tribhuwan Nath Pandey and Rajendra Prasad Pandey, on the basis of which, appellant was allegedly implicated in this crime.

56. On the basis of above mentioned discussions, appreciation and analyzation of evidence available on record, the impugned judgment and order dated 23.09.2003 cannot be said to be perverse or against the evidence available on record. It is liable to be upheld and it is upheld accordingly.

57. Learned A.G.A. has pointed out that Senior Jail Superintendent, Central Jail Naini, Prayagraj vide its letter dated 29.01.2020 has informed him that the appellant, Krishna Kumar Pandey @ Babloo was detained in Central Jail Naini, Prayagraj, after transfer from District Jail, Pratapgarh on 25.12.2003. He has been released on 07.12.2019 from Central Jail Naini, Prayagraj after remission of his sentence on the basis of Government Order of Jail Administration & Reforms, Anubhag-2, Uttar Pradesh Government vide order No. 159/22-2-2019-17(202)/2019 dated 05.02.2019.

58. We have perused the aforesaid government order. The sentence of appellant, Krishna Kumar Pandey @ Babloo has been remitted by Hon'ble Governor of Uttar Pradesh under Article 161 of the Constitution of India. The appellant has served out sentence of 21 years, 11 months and 11 days with remission and 17 years, 04 months and 17 days without remission. His remaining period of imprisonment/ sentence has been remitted. The appellant has been released on 07.02.2019 on furnishing P.B. of Rs.50,000/- to maintain lawful conduct, peace and law and order.

59. Since, none is responding on behalf of appellant, therefore, the present appeal has been disposed of accordingly in absence of the appellant's counsel.

60. It is pertinent to mention here that the Government of U.P. has not preferred any appeal assailing the acquittal of co-accused, Ramesh Chandra Pandey.

61. Copy of judgment be sent to the concerned trial court and the Senior Superintendent, Central Jail Naini, Prayagraj for information and further necessary action.

62. The record of trial court be sent back for compliance.

Order Date :- 04.02.2020.

Mustaqeem

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Allahabad High Court