Allahabad High Court
Shravan @ Sharvan vs State Of U.P. on 9 January, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 ALL 103, 2019 (2) ALJ 616, 2019 (109) ACC (SOC) 60 (ALL), (2019) 2 ADJ 43 (ALL)
Bench: Sudhir Agarwal, Ram Krishna Gautam
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD A.F.R. Reserved on 27.11.2018 Delivered on 09.01.2019 Court No. - 34 Case :- JAIL APPEAL No. - 3346 of 2012 Appellant :- Shravan @ Sharvan Respondent :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- From Jail,H.N. Sharma, Prateek Samadhiya (A.C.) Counsel for Respondent :- A.G.A. Ratan Singh, Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.)
1. This Criminal Appeal under section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.) has been filed as Jail Appeal through the Superintendent of Jail, Ghaziabad, u/s 383 Cr.P.C. against judgment of conviction and sentence dated 30.5.2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Hapur, District Ghaziabad, in S.T. No. 436 of 2009, State Vs. Shrawan alias Sarwan, arising out of Case Crime No. 349 of 2008, u/s 302 I.P.C., Police Station Bahadurgarh, District Ghaziabad, whereby accused-appellant Shrawan @ Sarwan has been convicted for the offence of murder punishable u/s 302 I.P.C. and sentenced for life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 15000/-, in case of default to undergo further imprisonment of two years.
2. On the very perusal of record of Trial Court, it is apparent that Case Crime No. 349 of 2008 was got registered at Police Station Bahadurgarh, District Ghaziabad, on 4.11.2008 at 8.30 A.M. on the written report (Ext. Ka1) of Sanjeev Kumar, son of Sheoraj, resident of Village Bihuni, P.S. Bahadurgarh, District Ghaziabad, against the accused-appellant Shrawan alias Sarwan son of Bhagwani Gaur, resident of Village Mursi, P.S. Jay Singh Nagar, District Shahdaul (M.P.) stating therein that the informant was sleeping after taking usual dinner. His family members were also sleeping. His brother Rajeev had slept inside the room, door of which was open and his servant Shrawan @ Sarwan (appellant) was sleeping in verandah in front of said room. Main door of Haveli was closed from inside. The informant was awakened at about 4.00 A.M. He came on the ground floor and found that the main gate of the house was open. He became suspicious. He found that his servant Shrawan @ Sarwan was not there on his cot. He made a call for his brother Rajeev, which was of no response. He entered inside the room and found his brother dead on the cot and an axe was lying at the floor below the cot. Hence, it was a murder committed by the servant Shrawan by assault with the said axe on the face of his brother. He shouted, on which many persons of village rushed to the spot. Ashok, son of Member Singh, resident of his village Bihuni, apprised him that while he was returning home from his field after making arrangement of irrigation, at about 2.45 A.M. he saw the servant Shrawan running through irrigating channel towards Atsaini. The informant and others searched him in nearby Jungle but in vain. Rajeev was aged about 40 years. The F.I.R. (Ext. Ka1) was scribed by Bhishm Tyagi, son of Mansharam, resident of village Bihuni, district Ghaziabad.
3. After lodging of F.I.R. investigation was undertaken by PW8, S.I. Sanjay Kumar Shukla, who rushed to the spot, recovered blood stained axe and prepared recovery mem (Ext. Ka2) in respect thereof. It was kept under seal after wrapping in a cloth and specimen seal was got prepared. Bedsheet (Dutaee) and pillow having blood stains over them were taken in possession, wrapped and sealed and recovery memo (Ext. Ka3) was prepared. Specimen seal was prepared on the spot. Inquest proceedings was got conducted and inquest report (Ext. Ka4) was prepared on the spot. Dead body was properly sealed and sent for autopsy along with relevant police papers.
4. Postmortem examination on the dead body was conducted on the same day at 3.25 P.M. and vide postmortem report (Ext Ka5) following antemortem injuries were found:
1. Lacerated wound 13x 12 cm front on the nose at right side of face bone deep. Bones were fractured under the injury.
2. Lacerated wound of reversed L shape in an area of 9 cm x 1.5 cm bone deep present on left side of face over cheek bone fracture of underlying bones, both jaws of face along with nasal bone, frontal bone of skull and bone of skull.
Death was result of above ante-mortem injuries
5. Investigation ultimately resulted in filing of charge-sheet against accused Shrawan @ Sarwan for offence punishable u/s 302 I.P.C., on which the Magistrate took cognizance. As the offence of murder punishable u/s 302 I.P.C. was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to Court of Sessions.
6. The Additional Sessions Judge, Hapur, vide order dated 3.7.2009 levelled the following charge against the accused Shrawan @ Sarwan.
";g fd fnukad 3@4-11-2008 dks jkf= esa fdlh le; vkius xzke fcgquh Fkkuk cgknqjx< ftyk xkft;kckn esa oknh latho dqekj ds HkkbZ jktho dh gR;k mlds eqWg ij dqYgkMh dks ewan ekjdj ml le; dj nh tc og vius dejs esa lks jgk FkkA bl izdkj vkius ,slk vijk/k dkfjr fd tks Hkk0na0la0 dh /kkjk 302 ds v/khu n.Muh; gS vkSj esjs izlaKku esa gSA"
"That you in the night intervening 3/4.11.2008 in village Bihuni, P.S. Bahadurgarh, Ditrict Ghaziabad, committed murder of Rajeev, brother of informant Sanjeev, by inflicting with blunt side of axe on his face while he was sleeping in his room. Thereby you committed an offence punishable under section 302 I.P.C. within my cognizance." (English translation by Court.) The charge was read over and explained to the accused, who pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.
7. Prosecution examined PW1- complainant Sanjeev Kumar, PW2-Ashok Kumar, PW3- Hem Lata, PW4- Bhishm Tyagi, PW5- Dr. Sahdev Kumar, Senior Consultant, PW6- Head Constable Ram Chran, PW7- S.I. Dhan Prakash and PW8- S.I. Sanjeev Kumar Shukla. Out of them PW1 to PW4 are witnesses of fact. Rest are formal witnesses.
8. Accused Shrawan @ Sarwan was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the accusation of murder and pleaded ignorance about the offence. He admitted that he was a servant for about two months at the service of informant-PW1. He had early gone to his hometown in M.P. due to scolding done by his master, because he had demanded money. Testimonies of PW2 to PW8, Exhibits and materials Exhibits proved by the prosecution witnesses were said to be not within his knowledge. He has stated "eSa dke djus vk;k Fkk] oknh ds ?kj dke fd;kA mUgksaus dgk fd rqedks lkyHkj NqVVh ugha feysxh vkSj u iSlk feysxkA oknh latho us eq>s MkaVk Fkk rks eSa Mjdj vius ?kj vk x;k FkkA esjs vkus ds Ms< eghus ckn eq>s iqfyl idMdj yk;hA eq>s irk ugha fd fdlus fdldks ekjkA"
"He had come to work, worked at the informant's house. He said that he would neither get leave nor money for one year. When informant Sanjeev scolded, being scared, I came back to my house. One and half months after coming home, police arrested me. I am not aware as to who killed whom." (English translation by Court.) Appellant further stated "eSa xjhc vkneh FkkA eSa gh lcls detksj fn[kkbZ fn;k vkSj eSa igys gh dke NksMdj tk pqdk FkkA blyh;s eq>s >wBk Qalk fn;k FkkA"
"I was poor man. Only I was found weakest and since I had left job, therefore, I was falsely implicated." (English translation by Court.) No evidence in defence was given by the accused.
9. The court below after hearing learned counsel for both sides passed the the judgment of conviction dated 30.5.2012 for offence punishable u/s 302 I.P.C. and sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 15000/-, in case of default in payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment of two years. This judgment of trial court is impugned through this jail appeal.
10. We have heard Sri Prateek Samadhiya, learned Amicus Curiae, for the appellant and Sri Ratan Singh, learned AGA for the State, and have gone through the impugned judgment and trial court's record.
11. The impugned judgment has been assailed on the ground that Trial Court has failed to appreciate facts and law placed before it. There is no independent witness account. There is inconsistency in medical evidence and over all testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. Motive was inconsistent and there exist material contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses. Appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He has no enmity with any one. He is resident of district Shahdaul (Madhya Pradesh). He was at job only for two months at the house of the complainant and had left the job therefrom. He had no criminal antecedent but has been convicted and sentenced without any evidence against him.
12. In a case, which rests on circumstantial evidence, law postulates, twin requirements to be satisfied. First, every link of chain of circumstances, necessary to establish the guilt of accused, must be established by prosecution beyond reasonable doubt; and second, all the circumstances must be consistent with the guilt of accused.
13. In Hanumant Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1952 SC 343, as long back as in 1952, Hon'ble Mahajan, J. expounded various concomitant of proof of a case based purely on circumstantial evidence and said:
"... circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved...... it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused." (emphasis added)
14. In Hukam Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1977 SC 1063, Court said, where a case rests clearly on circumstantial evidence, inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with innocence of accused or the guilt of any other person.
15. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622 Court while dealing with a case based on circumstantial evidence, held, that onus is on prosecution to prove that the chain is complete. Infirmity or lacuna in prosecution cannot be cured by false defence or plea. Conditions precedent before conviction, based on circumstantial evidence, must be fully established. Court described following condition precedent:
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established.
(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty.
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
(emphasis added)
16. In Ashok Kumar Chatterjee vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1989 SC 1890, Court said:
"... when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence such evidence must satisfy the following tests :
(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;
(2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;
(3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively; should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and, (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence."
(emphasis added)
17. In C. Chenga Reddy and Others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1996(10) SCC 193, Court said:
"In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further, the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence." (emphasis added)
18. In Bodh Raj @ Bodha and Ors. vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir, 2002(8) SCC 45 Court quoted from Sir Alfred Wills, "Wills' Circumstantial Evidence" (Chapter VI) and in para 15 of judgement said:
"(1) the facts alleged as the basis of any legal inference must be clearly proved and beyond reasonable doubt connected with the factum probandum;
(2) the burden of proof is always on the party who asserts the existence of any fact, which infers legal accountability;
(3) in all cases, whether of direct or circumstantial evidence the best evidence must be adduced which the nature of the case admits;
(4) in order to justify the inference of guilt, the inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation, upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt, (5) if there be any reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused, he is entitled as of right to be acquitted." (emphasis added)
19. The above principle in respect of circumstantial evidence has been reiterated in subsequent authorities also in Shivu and Anr. vs. Registrar General High Court of Karnataka and Anr., 2007(4) SCC 713 and Tomaso Bruno vs. State of U.P., 2015(7) SCC 178.
20. In Ganesh K. Gulve Etc vs State Of Maharashtra, AIR 2002 SC 3068 Court has propounded as under:
"In order to appreciate the evidence, the Court is required to bear in mind the set up and environment in which the crime is committed. The level of understanding of the witnesses. The over jealousness of some of near relations to ensure that everyone even remotely connected with the crime be also convicted. Everyone's different way of narration of same facts. These are only illustrative instances. Bearing in mind these broad principles, the evidence is required to be appreciated to find out what part out of the evidence represents the true and correct state of affairs. It is for the courts to separate the grain from the chaff."
21. In the present case, factum of accused being servant of the deceased is undisputed. Scolding for the demand of money made by the accused, by the deceased is an admitted fact. The accused being resident of District Shahdaul (M.P.) and being on job with the deceased at his home since two months prior to the occurrence is also an admitted fact. These three links of the chain are undisputed.
22. Now we shall scrutinize the testimony of Prosecution witnesses in relation to commission of crime and to test the veracity of their statements with reference to grounds taken by the appellant.
23. PW1- Sanjeev Kumar in his examination in chief has stated on oath that the occurrence is of 10.30 P.M. of 3.11.2008, while he was sleeping in the room. His brother Rajeev was sleeping inside an open room on ground floor. Servant Shrawan was sleeping in Verandah in front of the said room. Informant and other family members were asleep after closing main gate from inside. He was awakened and came down through stairs to ground floor. He found main door of the house open, servant Shrawan was not at his cot, he made a call for his brother Rajeev, but with no response. He went inside the room and found his brother covered with quilt. When quilt was removed, he found him under pool of blood over his face and a blood stained axe lying near him. As his brother Rajeev had given Rs. 10,000/- in advance to Shrawan but the latter was not serious towards his job, he was scolded by deceased and owing to it, he had murdered Rajeev. Complainant made hue and cry on which many persons reached on the spot. One Ashok, resident of the same village, told that while coming to his home in the very night at about 2.45 A.M. he had seen Shrawan running towards Atsaini by the side of water channel (Rajwaha). Thereafter Shrawan was searched in the nearby field and jungle but was not traceable, hence the complainant got the report (Ext. Ka1) scribed by Bhishm Tyagi and put his signature over it. He had gone to police station, where this report was filed and case was registered. Registration of crime number by presenting written report (Ext. Ka1) has not been controverted by learned counsel for defence in cross-examination nor the same carries any material contradiction, rather a suggestive leading question was put to this witness that someone else might have trespassed inside the house and committed murder of deceased and thereafter a false report against the accused was got registered by the informant. Meaning thereby, registration of this case crime on the written report of the complainant is not disputed. This has further been corroborated by the testimony of PW4- Bhishm Tyagi, who was scribe of report (Ext. Ka1) and had stated that upon dictation of the informant Sanjeev Kumar, he had scribed the same, which was read over to him and then he put his signature over it and this report is in his handwriting and signature. This witness has proved it as exhibit Ka1. In cross-examination this has further been reiterated that the report was written in the village at the time when many persons were present on the spot. This registration of case crime number has been further corroborated by the testimony of PW6 HCP Ram Charan, who in his examination in chief has stated that while posted at police station Bahadurgarh on 4.11.2008 he had registered Case Crime no. 349 of 2008 on written report (Ext. Ka1) presented by informant Sanjeev Kumar at the police station, u/s 302 I.P.C. Chick report (Ext. Ka6), prepared in his handwriting and signature was proved by him. Registration of this crime number was entered at G.D. Entry no. 12 at 8.30 A.M. of the date and carbon copy of the same (Ext. Ka-7) has also been proved by PW6. In cross-examination this witness has stated that Sanjeev Kumar, along with few others, had come to the police station at about 8.30 A.M. when he was present there. A suggestive question has been put to this witness that this was an ante-timed report by way of stopping G.D. entry, which has been answered in negative. There is no material contradiction in the testimony of this witness.
24. When the testimony of this witness PW6 and PW4 Bhishm Tyagi was confronted to accused-appellant in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. he pleaded ignorance, meaning thereby that accused-appellant neither controverted nor disputed their statements. Hence, registration of case crime number on the written report of PW1-informant on the date, time and place stands fully proved. The written report (Ext. Ka1) with chick F.I.R. (Ext. Ka6) and G.D. Entry (Ext. Ka7) have established that the occurrence related to intervening night of 3/4.11.2008 and the F.I.R. was got lodged at 8.30 A.M. on 4.11.2008. Hence, this was a promptly lodged named report containing specific motive against the accused-appellant.
25. In the circumstantial evidence case motive plays a vital role and when motive is established, it becomes a scanner for appreciation of other evidence. Court in 2007(2) JIC 831 (SC) has propounded that "in any trial based on direct evidence motive is of no avail but in the trial based on circumstantial evidence it becomes vital in the appreciation of evidence."
26. In the present case, motive has been set out since the very inception that the accused was servant of deceased, fled away from the spot after commission of murder, since deceased had scolded him for non-seriousness towards his job and factum of leaving the job for that reason has been admitted by accused in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C.
27. PW7- S.I. Dhanprakash, in his examination in chief, has stated on oath that while posted at P.S. Bahadurgarh on 4.11.2008 he had conducted inquest proceeding of deceased Rajeev Kumar of village Bihuni in Case Crime No. 349 of 2008 under the direction of Station Officer S. K. Shukla. The inquest report (Ext. Ka4) was prepared at the spot. Dead body was wrapped in a bedsheet. After sealing it properly and preparing specimen seal it was handed over to Constable Narveer and Arsad Ali for carrying to District Hospital for autopsy. Relevant police papers were prepared at the spot by this witness in his handwriting and signature, which were marked as Ext. Ka1 to Ka4 including Photo of dead body, letter to C.M.O. in Form 13 and specimen seal. In cross-examination he has stated that the police team had reached the spot at 9.00 A.M. The spot was inspected. Village Bihuni is about 8 Kms away, from the police station. He was with chick F.I.R., G.D. entry and other relevant papers delivered from the police station. Factual situation, lying of dead body etc. were seen by him. A suggestive question regarding ante-timed report and proceedings was put to him by learned counsel for defence, which was answered in negative. Testimony of PW7 has no material contradiction therein. Recovery and preparation of recovery memo of blood stained axe, lying at floor has also been formally proved by this witness. From the inquest report (Ext. Ka4) it is apparent that it was conducted in that room of the complainant's house, where dead body of deceased Rajeev was lying on a cot wrapped in quilt and death of deceased wasowing to ante-mortem injuries on his person.
28. Factum of cause of death has further been substantiated by the testimony of Dr. Sahdev Kumar (PW5), who had conducted autopsy on dead body of deceased on 4.11.2008 at 3.25 P.M. The deceased was found to be about 40 years of age and the death had occurred about half day before. The dead body was of average body built and rigor mortis was present over upper and lower limb. Two ante-mortem injuries, mentioned above, with fracture of bones beneath them and both of jaws were found. On the internal examination, brain membranes and tongue were found lacerated. Semi digested and solid food about 250 gms was in the stomach. Gall bladder was found 1/3rd full. The cause of death as per this witness was due to shock and hemorrhage owing to above injuries. Clothes lying on the person of dead body was taken and kept under seal. Postmortem report (Ext. Ka5) was prepared by him has been proved. He also opined that the injuries might be caused by axe. Time of death was about 2.00 A.M. of 4.11.2008. In cross-examination the witness stated that rigor mortis depends upon climatic condition. Death of deceased might be between 10.00 P.M. to 4.00 A.M. of intervening night of 3/4.11.2008. The injuries were not of sharp edged weapon rather of hard blunt weapon, which might occur by blow of any hard blunt object. The same could also be occurred by blow of axe provided it is not sharp edged. Hence this was neither a suicidal nor an accidental death, rather it was a death owing to ante-mortem injuries, which was a culpable homicide.
29. PW3-Hemlata is the wife of the complainant and she was present inside the home when this occurrence had taken place. She too has categorically stated that the deceased was asleep inside room, whereas the servant Shrawan was asleep in Verandah adjacent to the room, where the deceased was sleeping. When her husband Sanjeev came down to ground floor at about 4.00 A.M. he found the servant Shrawan missing and Rajeev was lying dead. Though she was not an eyewitness of the occurrence, she was examined during course of investigation by the I.O. However, her testimony contains no contradiction.
30. PW8 is I.O., S.I. Sanjeev Kumar Shukla, has stated that while posted as Station Officer at P.S. Bahadurgarh on 4.11.2008 he took investigation of Crime No. 349 of 2008, u/s 302 I.P.C. registered on the same day. He undertook investigation, rushed to the spot, took statement of the complainant, got inquest proceedings conducted, sent dead body for autopsy, prepared site map on the pointing of the complainant, axe and bedding were taken into possession and prepared their recovery memos. Accused Shrawan was searched. Witness Ashok, son of Member, Mool Chand, s/o Sheoraj Singh, Smt. Mamta w/o deceased Rajeev and Smt. Hemlata w/o complainant Sanjeev were examined by him on 5.11.2008. On 6.11.2008 police personnel were sent at the village of accused-appellant situate in village Mursi, District Shahdaul (M.P.) but he was not available despite repeated raid. Autopsy report was entered in the case diary on 16.11.2008. Witnesses of inquest proceedings were examined on 23.11.2008. N.B.W. was got issued from the Court for the arrest of the accused Shrawan. Statement of Constable Ram Charan Singh was recorded in the case diary on 13.12.2008. Information regarding arrest of accused Shrawan was received on 19.12.2008. After getting transit remand of the accused Shrawan he produced the accused in the Court at Garhmukteshwar on 24.12.2008 where his statement was recorded. Thereafter charge-sheet was submitted. Report of Forensic Science Laboratory was obtained, site plan (Ext. Ka12), charge-sheet (Ext. Ka13) along material Exhibits 1 to 4 have been formally proved by this witness. A suggestive question has been put to this witness that the police had reached the spot early in the morning and this report was ante-timed and no such axe was recovered from the spot. These questions were answered in negative. This formal witness has proved formally the investigation. The investigation and the documents proved by this witness were put to the accused in questions nos. 18, 19 and 20 of the questions made u/s 313 Cr.P.C. to which the accused has given no reply simply by saying that "dqN ugha dguk gS" "Nothing to say".
31. Accused-appellant Shrawan was named at the very initial stage of lodging F.I.R., which has been cogently proved by unimpeachable testimony of PW1. Running towards Atsaini from water channel at about 2.45 A.M. in close proximity of time has been proved by PW2 Ashok Kumar. Admission of scolding by the deceased and thereafter leaving the job has also been admitted by the accused-appellant, but he has not said as to when he had left the house of the deceased for his hometown, whereas PW8 has proved that the accused-appellant was missing from his home and after several efforts he could be arrested from there. Hence, it is proved that he was absconding from his house. Forensic Science Laboratory report, tendered by learned prosecutor and proved by PW8, is to the effect that on the materials i.e. axe, bedding and pillow sent for chemical examination, there were presence of human blood. Autopsy report proves that death of deceased occurred owing to antemortem injuries mentioned therein and the same has been proved by PW5, Dr. Sahdev Kumar. He has stated that the injuries on the person of the deceased might be caused by axe provided it is not sharp edged, which is the case of the prosecution. Hence, from the over all appreciation of evidence, it is apparent that each link of chain has been proved by the prosecution and if joined together proves the guilt for which charge was levelled against the accused-appellant. The court below has properly appreciated the facts and law placed before it and has rightly reached the conclusion that the charge levelled against the appellant was proved by the prosecution without any reasonable doubt and has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant.
32. The appeal merits dismissal.
33. In the result Jail appeal is dismissed. Impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 30.5.2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Hapur, District Ghaziabad, in S.T. No. 436 of 2009, State Vs. Shrawan alias Sarwan, arising out of Case Crime No. 349 of 2008, u/s 302 I.P.C., Police Station Bahadurgarh, District Ghaziabad, whereby accused-appellant Shrawan @ Sarwan has been convicted for the offence of murder punishable u/s 302 I.P.C. and sentenced for life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 15000/-, in case of default to undergo further imprisonment of two years, is hereby confirmed.
34. Lower court record alongwith a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to District Court concerned for compliance and further necessary action.
35. A copy of this order be also sent to the appellant through concerned Jail Superintendent.
36. Before parting, we find it appropriate to place on record our commendation to learned counsel, who has argued this appeal as Amicus Curiae with ability and actually assisted the Court effectively. We provide that he shall be paid counsel's fee as Rs. 11,000/-. State Government is directed to ensure payment of aforesaid fee through Additional Legal Remembrancer posted in the office of Advocate General at Allahabad, to Mr. Prateek Samadhiya, Amicus Curiae, without any delay and, in any case, within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
Order Date :-09.01.2019 Pcl