Page 1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1508 OF 2005

ASHOK RAI  …APPELLANT

Versus

STATE OF U.P. & ORS.   …RESPONDENTS

JUDGMENT

(SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.

1.  There were eight accused. They were Bashisht Rai-A1,  

Jai Prakash Rai-A2, Ashok Rai-A3, Awadh Narain Rai-A4, Hirdaya  

Narain-A5,  Umesh  Chandra  Rai-A6,  Loknath-A7  and  Ramnath  

Rai-A8. All of them were tried in Sessions Trial No. 215 of 1979.  

Bashisht Rai–A1 was tried for the offences under Sections 148,  

302 and 449 of the IPC. Ashok Rai-A3 and Umesh Chandra Rai-

A6 were charged under Sections 148, 449 and 302 read with  

Sections 34 & 149 of the IPC.  They were alternatively charged  

under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC.  Rest of the  

accused were charged under Sections 147 and 302 read with  

1

Page 2

Section 149 of the IPC.  

2. According to the prosecution deceased Kailash Rai, the  

material witnesses and the appellant belong to one family being  

descendants of a common ancestor. They lived in a joint family.  

Umesh Chandra Rai-A6 was the son of Babu Lal brother of Ram  

Dutt  (father  of  deceased Kailash  Rai  & PW1-  Kamla  Rai,  the  

informant).   Deceased Kailash Rai  and other  members of  his  

family  lived  jointly  with  Babu  Lal.   Umesh  Chandra  Rai-A6  

separated  from  the  joint  family  7  to  8  months  before  the  

occurrence because of oral partition.  He wanted his share from  

the  land  in  Tandwa  village.  His  father  Babu  Lal  was  not  

agreeable  to  this.   There  was  altercation  between  deceased  

Kailash Rai  and Umesh Chandra Rai-A6 on this  issue.  Umesh  

Chandra Rai-A6 developed friendship with Loknath-A7 who had  

a  personal  enmity  with  PW1-  Kamla  Rai.  There  were  civil  

litigations pending between Loknath –A7 and PW1- Kamla Rai.  

3. The  incident  in  question  took  place  in  the  night  

intervening 26th & 27th of June, 1979 between 1.00 a.m and 2.00  

2

Page 3

a.m.  PW1-Kamla Rai, Shriram Rai, Gorakh Rai, Munna Lal and  

children were sleeping in the Sehan in the north of the Baithaka.  

The ladies were sleeping inside the Zanana house.  Deceased  

Kailash Rai and his wife PW4-Bijula Devi were sleeping on a cot  

inside the Ahata.  Between 1.00 a.m. and 2.00 a.m. Ashok Rai-

A3,  Umesh Chandra Rai–A6 and Bashisht Rai-A1 came in the  

Ahata  by  climbing  over  the  roof  through  the  window.   They  

came inside. Bashisht Rai-A1 was armed with a dao.  Umesh  

Chandra Rai-A6 had a gandasa.  Ashok Rai-A3 was armed with a  

sword.  Ashok Rai-A3 closed the mouth of PW4-Bijula Devi. She  

woke-up.  She saw Umesh Chandra Rai-A6 pressing the head of  

her husband and Bashisht Rai-A1 cutting his throat.  Deceased  

Kailash Rai started moving his body restlessly.  He received two  

injuries on his chest.  Thereafter, all the three accused started  

running  away.   PW4-Bijula  Devi  raised  cries  and  flashed  the  

torch.  The accused reached the gate and looked at her. She  

continued to cry.  The accused went out through the door which  

opened towards the verandah of the Baithaka.  PW1- Kamla Rai,  

Shriram Rai and others who were sleeping outside in the Sehan  

woke-up due to the cries of PW4-Bijula Devi.  PW1-Kamla Rai  

3

Page 4

and Shriram had torches with them.  They flashed the torches  

towards  the  door  through  which  Umesh  Chandra  Rai-A6,  

Bashisht Rai-A1 and Ashok Rai-A3 were coming out.  They saw  

Bashisht  Rai-A1  with  a  dao,  Ashok  Rai-A3  with  a  sword  and  

Umesh Chandra Rai-A6 with a gandasa.  They were challenged  

by  PW1-Kamla  Rai  and  others,  but  they  continued  running  

towards the South. PW1-Kamla Rai came in the Ahata and found  

Kailash Rai lying dead near his cot with a throat injury.  PW4-

Bijula Devi was crying.  Her clothes were blood stained.  She  

narrated the incident to him.  He dictated his report to Ram  

Babu.  He took it to P.S. Mohamadabad. It was lodged at 2.45  

a.m.  Entry  was  made  in  General  Diary.   Investigation  was  

started.  The accused were arrested.  Post-mortem of deceased  

Kailash Rai revealed following external injuries.  

“1. One incised wound on right side of neck in  the middle measuring 15 cm x 4 cm, horizontally  placed extending from anterior  aspect  of  neck  up to posterior aspect of right side with retracted  skiing in the middle, clear cut margins, inverted  all  major  vessels  and  muscles,  trachea,  ocsephegens cut upto bone, sprouting of blood  present.  

2. One  incised  wound  on  left  side  of  chest  

4

Page 5

horizontally  placed  measuring  7cm  x  2  cm  spindle shaped, 9 cm above the left nipple, clean  cut margins muscle deep.  

3. Incised wound measuring 2 cm x 5 cm on  left chest wall horizontally placed 2 cm medial to  injury no. 2, clean cut margins muscle deep.”

On  internal  examination,  inter  alia,  larynx  and  trachea  were  

found cut. The doctor opined that ante-mortem injuries caused  

by sharp weapons produced haemorrhage and shock resulting  

in death.  

4. After completion of the investigation the accused came  

to be charged as aforesaid.  The important witnesses examined  

by  the  prosecution  are  PW1-  Kamla  Rai,  PW2-Kedar  Rai  and  

PW4-Bijula Devi the wife of the deceased.  The accused denied  

the charge and contended that  they were falsely  implicated.  

Ashok Rai-A3 stated that at the time of occurrence he was at  

Allahabad preparing his thesis for M.Sc. (Agr).  He claimed that  

he was working as Assistant Soil Conservative Inspector.   

5. The trial  court convicted Umesh Chandra Rai-A6 under  

Section  302  read  with  Sections  34  and  449  of  the  IPC  and  

5

Page 6

sentenced him to  undergo imprisonment  for  life  on both the  

counts.  The remaining seven accused were acquitted.  Umesh  

Chandra Rai-A6 carried an appeal against his conviction to the  

High Court.   During the pendency of the appeal he died and  

therefore  his  appeal  abated.  The  State  carried  an  appeal  

against the acquittal  of the other accused to the High Court.  

The High Court held Bashisht Rai-A1 and Ashok Rai-A3 guilty  

and convicted them for the offences punishable under Sections  

302 and 449 of the IPC and under Section 302 read with Section  

34 and Section 449 of the IPC respectively.  Each of them was  

sentenced to life imprisonment for each of the offences.  The  

acquittal of the other accused was upheld. The instant appeal is  

preferred  by  Ashok  Rai-A3  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  ‘the  

appellant’).

6. Mr.  Santosh  Mishra,  learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  

submitted  that  the  High  Court  has  wrongly  convicted  the  

appellant.  He submitted that the conviction cannot be based  

only on the evidence of PW-4. Since the prosecution has alleged  

that there is strong motive, corroboration to PW-4’s evidence  

6

Page 7

was  a  must.   In  this  connection  he  relied  on  Pulicherla  

Nagaraju @ Nagaraja Reddy v. State of A.P.  1  . He submitted  

that  there  is  no  corroboration  to  PW4’s  version.  Counsel  

submitted that admittedly the incident occurred in the dead of  

night.  There were no lights. PW4 is a pardanashin lady. Out of  

the three accused who entered the room, as per prosecution,  

one was Umesh Chandra Rai-A6 who was PW4’s brother-in-law.  

She could have perhaps identified him.  But the appellant and  

the other accused might not have been even seen by her.  She  

could  not  have  identified  them.   PW1-Kamla  Rai  must  have  

asked her to include their  names as the assailants.   Counsel  

submitted that though several ladies were present at the scene  

of offence none of them is examined.  Moreover, Ram Babu the  

person who wrote the FIR dictated to him by PW1-Kamla Rai is  

not  examined.   Counsel  submitted that  deceased Kailash Rai  

was involved in two other cases of dacoity.  It is Umesh Chandra  

Rai-A6  who  had  enmity  with  deceased  Kailash  Rai.   The  

appellant had no enmity with him.  There was no reason for him  

to kill deceased Kailash Rai.  Counsel submitted that PW1-Kamla  

1  2006(11) SCC 444

7

Page 8

Rai was sleeping outside.  He was an easy prey. There is no  

reason why the appellant would go inside and kill the deceased.  

Counsel  further submitted that the prosecution witnesses are  

interested  witnesses.   Their  evidence  must  be  closely  

scrutinized.  In this case there is also enmity between the two  

sides.  Therefore, false involvement cannot be ruled out.  In this  

connection  he  relied  on  Raju  @  Balachandran  &  Ors.  v.   

State of Tamil Nadu  2  .  Counsel submitted that the appellate  

court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if there are  

compelling  and  substantial  reasons  for  doing  so.   If  the  

impugned  judgment  of  acquittal  is  clearly  unreasonable  or  

perverse,  the appeal  court  can interfere with  it.   If  the view  

taken by the trial court is a reasonably possible view it should  

not be interfered with.  In support of this submission counsel  

relied on a number of  judgments,  one of  them being  Bihari  

Nath Goswami v.  Shiv Kumar Singh & Ors.  3     .  It  is  not  

necessary to refer to all the judgments cited by learned counsel  

as all those judgments reiterate the same principles.  Counsel  

submitted that the impugned judgment, so far as it convicts the  

2  2012(12) SCC 701 3  2004 (9) SCC 186

8

Page 9

appellant may, therefore, be set aside.  

7. Mr.  Shrish Kumar Misra, learned counsel  appearing for  

the State of U.P filed written submissions. He submitted that the  

trial court has erroneously ignored the most vital evidence.  The  

trial  court  has  wrongly  termed  PW2-Kedar  Rai  as  a  partisan  

witness.    Counsel  submitted  that,  in  any  case,  evidence  of  

partisan witnesses also can be relied upon if it is found to be  

cogent.  In this case evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW4 inspires  

confidence and ought to have been relied upon.  PW4 being the  

wife of the deceased is the most natural witness.  She had an  

opportunity to see the appellant.  The trial court wrongly held  

that  being  a  pardanashin  lady  she  might  not  have seen the  

appellant and hence her alleged identification cannot be relied  

upon.  The face of a pardanashin lady cannot be seen by others,  

but she can see everybody.  The view taken by the trial court  

that a person who has a bright future would not commit murder  

is unsustainable.  The suggestion that the appellant was not in  

the village at the relevant time has rightly been rejected by the  

High Court as no defence witness was examined to support it.  

9

Page 10

The trial court also erred  in relying on an entry in the case diary  

of the investigating officer to the effect that it was generally felt  

that the appellant and others except Umesh Chandra Rai-A6 are  

falsely involved in this case.   In this connection he relied on  

Mohd Ankoos & Ors. v. Public Prosecutor High Court of  

A.P., Hyaderabad  4   and Shamshul Kanwar v. State of U.P.  5  .  

Counsel submitted that in this case the only possible view that  

can be taken is that the appellant is guilty.  The High Court,  

therefore,  rightly  overturned  the  acquittal  order.   In  this  

connection he relied on K. Gopal Reddy v. State of Andhra  

Pradesh  6   and   G.C. Kanungo v. State of Orissa  7  .  Counsel  

submitted that the appeal be therefore, dismissed.  

8. Several Judgments of this court have been cited on the  

principles which should guide the court while dealing with an  

appeal against order of acquittal.  The law is so well settled that  

it is not necessary to refer to those judgments. Suffice it to say  

that the appellate court has to be very cautious while reversing  

an order of acquittal because order of acquittal strengthens the  4  2010(1) SCC94 5  1995(4) SCC 430 6  1979(1) SCC 355 7  1995(5) SCC 96

10

Page 11

presumption of innocence of the accused.  If the view taken by  

the trial  court is  a reasonably possible view it  should not be  

disturbed,  because the appellate court  feels  that  some other  

view is also possible.  A perverse order of acquittal replete with  

gross errors of facts and law will have to be set aside to prevent  

miscarriage of justice, because just as the court has to give due  

weight to the presumption of innocence and see that innocent  

person is not sentenced, it is equally the duty of the court to  

see  that  the  guilty  do  not  escape  punishment.   Unless  the  

appellate  court  finds  the  order  of  acquittal  to  be  clearly  

unreasonable and is convinced that there are substantial and  

compelling reasons to interfere with it,  it  should not interfere  

with it.  We will consider this case in light of these principles.  

 9. The  trial  court  has  erroneously  recorded  that  the  

accused had no motive to kill deceased Kailash Rai.  The High  

Court has rightly observed that Umesh Chandra Rai-A6 was the  

first  cousin  of  deceased Kailash  Rai.   The appellant  and A1-

Bashisht Rai belonged to the same family of Loknath, Ramnath  

Rai  and Deonath Rai  and there  was civil  as  well  as  criminal  

11

Page 12

litigation  pending  between  their  family  and  the  family  of  

deceased  Kailash  Rai.   Umesh  Chandra  Rai-A6  was  unhappy  

about the family partition.  He had a grouse against his first  

cousin  PW1-Kamla  Rai  over  the  partition  dispute.  PW1-Kamla  

Rai is the brother of deceased Kailash Rai.  Umesh Chandra Rai-

A6 had developed intimacy with other accused who were as it is  

not on good terms with PW1-Kamla Rai’s family.  Thus, it is not  

possible  to  say  that  motive  is  absent  in  this  case.  

Consequently, the argument that the appellant had no enmity  

with  deceased Kailash Rai;  that  PW1-Kamla Rai  was sleeping  

outside the room and, therefore, the appellant could have easily  

killed PW1-Kamla Rai instead of taking the risk of going inside  

and killing deceased Kailash Rai  must also be rejected.   The  

relations between the two sides were undoubtedly strained.  In  

such a situation, it is difficult to fathom the undercurrents.  As  

to why the accused chose deceased Kailash Rai and not PW1-

Kamla Rai is difficult to say.  But the fact remains that there was  

enmity between the two sides and there is reliable evidence on  

record  to  establish  that  the  appellant  was  involved  in  the  

murder of deceased Kailash Rai.  In any case, the prosecution  

12

Page 13

has examined PW4-Bijula Devi, who is an eye-witness.  When  

there is eye-witness account on record, the absence of motive  

pales into insignificance.  It was submitted that if it is held that  

there is  strong motive,  then,  there must  be corroboration to  

PW4’s  evidence  to  rule  out  false  implication.   In  this  case  

evidence of PW-1 & PW-2 and other attendant circumstances  

provide corroboration to PW4’s evidence.

10. It is argued that the prosecution case rests on evidence  

of  interested  witnesses.   No  independent  witnesses  are  

examined.  Unless  there  is  corroboration  to  the  evidence  of  

interested witnesses,  their  evidence cannot  be accepted.  We  

cannot  accept  this  submission.   Evidence  of  interested  

witnesses is not infirm.  It would be good to have corroboration  

to their evidence as a matter of prudence.  But corroboration is  

not always a must.  If the evidence of interested witnesses is  

intrinsically  good,  it  can  be  accepted  without  corroboration.  

However,  as held by this Court in  Raju@Balachandran  ,   the  

evidence of interested witnesses must be scrutinized carefully.  

So scrutinized, the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW4 appears to  

13

Page 14

be acceptable.  

11. The most important witness is PW4-Bijula Devi, the wife  

of deceased Kailash Rai.  She was sleeping in the Ahata in the  

courtyard, on the same cot along with her husband deceased  

Kailash Rai in the night in question.  She is the most natural  

witness.  Her clothes were found blood stained.  According to  

the serologist’s report the blood group of the blood found on her  

clothes  matched  the  blood group of  the  blood  found on  her  

husband’s clothes.  Her presence in the house at the dead of  

night cannot be doubted.  

12. Evidence of PW4-Bijula Devi is forthright and convincing.  

According to her, she woke-up when the appellant pressed her  

mouth. She saw Umesh Chandra Rai-A6 pressing his husband’s  

head hard.  She saw Bashisht Rai-A1 cut her husband’s neck  

with  a  dao.   She  stated  that  Umesh  Chandra  Rai-A6  had  a  

gandasa in his hand and the appellant had a sword in his hand.  

She further  stated  that  when her  husband tried  to  move he  

received two more injuries on his chest.  We have reproduced  

the injuries  sustained by the deceased.   They are consistent  

14

Page 15

with  this  evidence.   PW4 further  stated  that  after  assaulting  

deceased  Kailash  Rai,  the  accused  ran  away.  She  started  

shouting. She lit her torch before the accused could reach the  

door.  They turned at her; looked at her and ran away.  Hearing  

her cries, PW1-Kamla Rai and others came there.  She narrated  

the incident to them.  Thus, PW4 had ample opportunity to see  

the accused.  They were in close proximity with her and she had  

seen them in torch light. It would be difficult for her to forget  

the faces of her husband’s assailants.  It is stated that PW4 is a  

pardanashin lady.   The trial  court  has observed that  being a  

pardanashin lady she would not know the accused.  It is argued  

that  she  may  identify  Umesh  Chandra  Rai-A6,  he  being  her  

brother-in-law, but she could not have identified others.  This  

submission does not impress us.  As rightly contended by the  

State counsel, the face of a pardanashin lady cannot be seen by  

general public, but she can see them.  The accused and PW1-

Kamla Rai’s family reside in the same village.  Their houses are  

situated in the same area and in close vicinity.  Besides, there  

are disputes between the two sides.  As rightly observed by the  

High Court, the appellant belonged to the clan of PW4’s in-laws.  

15

Page 16

It is not possible, therefore, to hold that PW4 would not know  

the  appellant  and  could  not  have  seen  him  before,  merely  

because she stated that she did not know some persons from  

the village.  

13. We are also not prepared to accept the submission that  

PW4 gave the name of the appellant because PW1 asked her to  

do so.  There was no need for anyone to prompt her, because  

she had seen the incident from close quarters.  From the tenor  

of her evidence she appears to be a very truthful witness. When  

she was asked whether her husband was assaulted on the neck  

by a gandasa, she firmly stated, no not by a gandasa, but by a  

dao.  There is no reason to disbelieve her so far as complicity of  

the appellant is concerned.  

14. PW1-Kamla Rai provides corroboration to the evidence of  

PW4. He has given a general outline of the strained relationship  

between the two sides. He has then stated that at about 2.00  

a.m when PW4 raised cries he got up from his sleep.  He and  

Ram Rai lit their torch and flashed it towards the door of the  

meeting room which is a path for exit and which leads to Ahata.  

16

Page 17

In the torch light they saw the appellant, Bashisht Rai-A1 and  

Umesh Chandra Rai -A6 coming out of the door.  The appellant  

had a sword in his hand.  Bashisht Rai-A1 had a weapon in his  

hand. Umesh Chandra Rai-A6 had a gandasa in his hand.  They  

challenged the accused.  But the accused ran away.  They went  

to the Ahata.  They found Kailash Rai lying dead. PW4 who was  

crying narrated the incident to him.  He then dictated the report  

to Ram Babu. Ram Babu read out the report to him.  Thereafter,  

he  put  his  signature  on  the  same.   Then  he  went  to  Police  

Station,  Mohammadabad  and  lodged  it.   He  stated  that  the  

police station is about 3 furlong away from his house.  He has  

been  cross-examined  but  he  has  stood  firm  in  the  cross-

examination.  This witness is also a natural witness.  Admittedly,  

the deceased and this witness used to stay together. He was,  

therefore,  expected  to  be  present  in  the  house.   He  has  

truthfully stated the events.  His claim that he saw the appellant  

and  the  other  accused  running  with  weapons  cannot  be  

doubted.  He has truthfully stated that he dictated the FIR to  

Ram Babu.  It is true that Ram Babu is not examined.  But that  

does not  affect  the  veracity  of  the  evidence of  this  witness.  

17

Page 18

Pertinently, he has stated that Ram Babu read out the report  

and then he signed it.  Thus, he verified whether what he stated  

was  correctly  recorded or  not.   Besides,  the  FIR  is  promptly  

recorded at 2.45 a.m.    This witness has rightly been believed  

by the High Court.

15. PW2-Kedar Rai is a neighbour of Kamla Rai.  He stated  

that on the day of incident he was sleeping at the gate of his  

house.   At  about  2.00 a.m.  he woke-up from his  sleep upon  

hearing the screams of PW1-Kamla Rai.  He stated that he ran  

towards Kamla Rai’s house.  When he went 2 to 3 steps from  

the north-west corner of his house he saw people running.  He  

identified them in the light of torch.  Bashist Rai-A1 and Umesh  

Chandra Rai-A6 had weapons in their hands.  The appellant had  

a sword in his hand.  From west-side Ram Babu and Chandrima  

Rai  came with torches.   The accused ran towards the South.  

They ran after the accused for a while and stopped.  They went  

in the house of PW1-Kamla Rai.  They found Kailash Rai lying  

dead.  According to PW2, PW4-Bijula Devi told them that the  

appellant  and  the  other  two  accused  had  come  to  their  

18

Page 19

courtyard and attacked deceased Kailash Rai.  This witness has  

not seen the actual incident, but he corroborates PW4 and PW1  

to the extent that the appellant and the other two accused had  

weapons in their hands and they were seen running away from  

the house of PW1-Kamla Rai.  He has categorically denied the  

suggestion that he was giving false evidence due to enmity.  His  

house is near the house of deceased Kailash Rai.  His presence  

at the scene of offence is natural.  The trial court unnecessarily  

discarded his evidence holding that he is an interested witness.  

16. It  is  contended  that  the  appellant  was  busy  with  his  

thesis  for  M.Sc.(Agr.)  and  was  most  of  the  time  not  in  the  

village, and on the night in question he was not present in the  

village.  There is no substance in this submission.  As rightly  

observed  by  the  High  Court,  the  incident  took  place  in  the  

month of June when most of the educational institutions remain  

closed for summer, hence, the appellant may be present in the  

village.   Pertinently,  the  appellant  has  not  produced  any  

evidence to show that he was staying in a hostel.  There is no  

evidence to show what was the distance between the village  

19

Page 20

and  the  educational  institution  in  which  the  appellant  was  

studying.  Thus, the plea of alibi is not proved.  

17. It was wrong for the trial court to suggest that Bashisht  

Rai-A1 would not indulge in such activities because he had a  

bright career and future and indirectly apply that yardstick to  

the appellant.  Career or a position of a man in life is irrelevant.  

Crimes are also committed by men holding high positions and  

having bright future.  Trial court grossly erred in relying on such  

extraneous circumstance and rightly the High Court dismissed  

this circumstance as irrelevant.  

18. Perversity  of  the  trial  court’s  judgment  becomes  

apparent when one finds the undue importance given by it to  

the  diary  entries  made  by  the  investigating  officer  PW7-

Sheomurthy Singh. PW7 stated that it was mentioned by him in  

the case diary that  it  was the opinion of  general  public  that  

involvement of the accused except Umesh Chandra Rai-A6 is  

false.   The trial  court  made a  perverse  observation  that  the  

investigating officer never tried to find out whether this rumour  

is  true  and  submitted  charge-sheet.  Such  reliance  on  diary  

20

Page 21

entries  is  not  permissible  (Mohd  Ankoos  and  Shamshul  

Kanwar). Besides,  the  general  feeling of  the  society  has no  

relevance to a criminal case.  A court deciding a criminal case  

must  go  by  the  legal  evidence  adduced  before  it.  The  trial  

court’s order thus suffered from a gross error of law warranting  

the High Court’s interference.

19. It  was  argued  that  ladies  of  the  house  who  were  

admittedly present have not been examined.  We do not think  

that this has had any adverse impact on the prosecution case.  

The  ladies  were  sleeping  in  a  separate  room.   When  male  

members  of  the  family  were  available  to  give  evidence it  is  

unlikely that female members would step in witness box.  

20. In the ultimate analysis, we are of the opinion that the  

High Court rightly overturned the trial court’s order so far as it  

acquitted  the  appellant.   The  trial  court’s  view  is  totally  

perverse  and  unreasonable.   Undoubtedly,  there  were  

compelling  and  substantial  reasons  for  the  High  Court  to  

interfere with it.   We, therefore, confirm the impugned order.  

Appeal is dismissed.  The appellant is on bail.  He is directed to  

21

Page 22

surrender forthwith.  His bail bond stands cancelled.

21. We are informed that the appellant is a senior citizen.  

He is suffering from ‘Endstage Renal Disease’.  It appears that  

he  is  required  to  undergo  dialysis  twice  a  week.   This  

information is supplied to this Court by D.I.G., Allahabad range.  

The appellant’s health condition is, therefore, precarious.  While  

we sympathise with the appellant on this aspect, law must be  

allowed to take its own course.  The appellant, however, will be  

at liberty to approach the State Government for commutation of  

his sentence or the Jail  Superintendent for premature release  

under  the  provisions  of  the  U.P.  Jail  Manual,  a  deemed  

appropriate.   

…………………………………..J. (RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI)

……………………………………J. (MADAN B. LOKUR)

NEW DELHI; APRIL 15, 2014.  

22