Page 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL     APPEAL     NO.     1965      OF     2008    

PAPPU @ RAM NARAYAN    APPELLANT

                VERSUS

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH                            RESPONDENT

O     R     D     E     R   

1. This appeal arises out of judgment and order dated  

23.08.2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in  

Criminal Appeal No.428 of 2006. By the impugned judgment and order,  

the High Court has confirmed the appellant’s conviction and sentence  

of life imprisonment and three years rigorous imprisonment, under  

Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”  for short) and  

Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, respectively, ordered by the  

learned Sessions Judge in Sessions Case Nos. 859 and 860 of 2000 in  

his judgment and order dated 17.01.2006.

2. We have heard Shri Shovan Mishra, learned amicus for the  

appellant.  None appears for the respondent- State of Uttar Pradesh.  

3. We have perused the judgments of the Trial Court and the  

High Court. The Trial Court and the High Court, apart from the other  

evidence, have relied upon the evidence of P.W.1, who is the  

informant and also an eye-witness to the entire incident.  The Trial  

Court has also taken into consideration the postmortem report issued  

by the Doctor.  The Trial Court, after analysing the entire evidence  

on record, has concluded that it is the accused and the accused  

alone who is responsible for causing the death of Krishna Murari  

Gupta by shooting at him with the country made pistol. Accordingly,

Page 2

: 2 :

has convicted and sentenced the appellant for the aforesaid  

offences.  

4. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order of the Trial  

Court, the appellant had preferred an appeal before the High Court.  

By the impugned judgment, the High Court has confirmed the judgment  

of the Trial Court, as noticed by us earlier.

5. We have perused the judgment and order passed by the High  

Court as also the Trial Court.  We are convinced that the reasoning  

and the conclusion reached by both the Trial Court and the High  

Court does not suffer from any legal infirmity and, therefore, the  

interference with the impugned judgment is not called for.

6. In the result, the appeal requires to be dismissed.  It is  

ordered accordingly.

7. The fee payable to the amicus is assessed at Rs.7,500/-  

and is to be paid to Shri Shovan Mishra.

.......................J. (H.L. DATTU)

.......................J. (CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD)

NEW DELHI; OCTOBER 04, 2012