Disposed

Mukti Nath v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Allahabad HC18 Mar 2024CRLA/906/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Convicted with co-accused for assault causing death based on a single witness's testimony without any specific role assigned or identification of who inflicted the fatal injury. Identically placed co-accused had been granted bail. Bail granted during pendency of appeal with conditions including deposit of Rs. 20,000 towards fine.

What did the court decide?

Appellant released on bail during pendency of appeal on personal bond with two sureties; Rs. 20,000 fine to be deposited within a month, remaining fine stayed.

Mukti Nath vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 16

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 906 of 2024

¶3

Appellant :- Mukti Nath Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko Counsel for Appellant :- Naveen Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶5

( Order on Crl. Misc. Application No. 1 of 2023)

¶6

Heard Shri Naveen Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This bail application has been moved by the appellantapplicant / Mukti Nath to release him on bail during pendency of instant appeal filed against the judgment and order dated 31.01.2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Gonda in Sessions Trial No. 440 of 2013 'State Vs. Mukti Nath & others', arising out of case Crime No. 217 of 2013, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452 IPC, Police Station Chhapiya, District Gonda, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced under Section 304/34 IPC for a period of 10 years imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine, further to undergo 6 months additional simple imprisonment, under Section 323/34 IPC for a period of 1 year imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine, further to undergo 1 month additional imprisonment, under Section 504 IPC for a period of 2 years imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of payment of fine, further to undergo 3 months additional imprisonment, under Section 506 IPC for a period of 3 years imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of payment of fine, further to undergo 2 months additional imprisonment and under Section 452 IPC for a period of 5 years imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of payment of fine, further to undergo 1 month additional imprisonment. The sentences have been made to run concurrently.

¶8

The learned counsel for the applicant/ appellant while pressing the bail application submits that it is a case of false implication. The trial court has committed manifest illegality in appreciating the evidence made available on record. In the FIR as well as in the statement of the prosecution witnesses including the applicant/ injured 4 persons are shown to have

¶9

assaulted the deceased and the injured informant with 'lathi & danda' and only one injury shown to be fatal has been sustained by the deceased, however, during the course of the trial it has not been assessed as to who from amongst the accused persons was the author of the fatal injury.

¶10

It is vehemently submitted that the trial court has not considered the fact that there is a cross verson of the incident and despite there being ample evidence the trial court has recorded a judgement of acquittal in the cross case lodged on behalf of the appellant wherein the appellant has also sustained injuries.

¶11

It is further submitted that after thorough investigation the appellant and co-accused Vishwa Nath were charge sheeted by the Investigating Officer, however, after recording of the evidence of two prosecution witnesses, namely, P.W.1 Ram Autar/ informant and P.W. 2 Nazir Ahmad the two other accused persons who were exonerated by the Investigating Officer, namely, Ramjit and Dooth Nath were summoned to face trial by the trial court under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. However, after summoning of these accused persons when the evidence of P.W.2- Nazir Ahmad was again recorded, he did not support the prosecution version and had become hostile.

¶12

It is vehemently submitted that the hostility of co-accused Nazir Ahmad the only testimony was of P.W.1- Ram Autar and the law with regard to the cases based on the single testimony of the witness is now no more res integra and it is settled that to convict the accused person on the basis of sole witness his testimony must be of the nature of whole reliable, reliance in this regard has been placed on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vadivelu Thevar Vs. State of Madras, MANU/SC/0039/1957and Lallu Manjhi and others Vs. State of Jharkhand, MANU/SC/0004/2003.

¶13

It is also submitted that identically placed co-accused persons, namely, Doodhnath and Ramjeet have been granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide orders dated 20.2.2024 and 12.2.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal Nos. 519 of 2024 and 403 of 2024, respectively and the role of the instant appellant is at par with them.

¶14

It is also submitted that the appellant is not having any criminal antecedent and he was released on bail during the course of trial and has cooperated in the expeditious disposal of the case. It is undertaken that he will cooperate in the expeditious disposal of this appeal also.

¶15

Learned A.G.A. on the other hand opposes the prayer of bail of the appellant on the ground that the the case of the appellant is not at par with those who have been granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court.

¶16

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is reflected that general allegations of assault has been assigned to all the accused persons named in the FIR as well as in the statement of the prosecution witnesses including the injured ones. No specific role has been assigned to the any accused person including the appellant and it is vehemently submitted that the trial court has not adjudicated as to who from amongst the accused persons was the author of fatal injury sustained by deceased and all the accused persons have been convicted with the help of Section 34 of the IPC. Admittedly the case of the prosecution before the trial court was based on the testimony of a single witness. The law with regard to the cases based on the testimony of a single witness is settled and to convict an accused person on the basis of sole testimony of a witness the quality of the sole witness must be of the nature of wholly reliable. It also appears to be admitted that identically placed co-appellants/ convicts, namely, Doodhnath and Ramjeet have been granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court.

¶17

Thus, having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case and the reasons mentioned herein before the appellant may also be granted bail and the sentence with regard to him may also be suspended during the course of pendency of the appeal.

¶18

Let the appellant/applicant- Mukti Nath convicted in the aforesaid case be released on bail during pendency of this appeal on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶19

(1) The amount of Rs. 20,000/- of whole amounts of fine shall be deposited by the appellant/ applicant in the court below within a month from the actual date of his release from prison and the remaining amount shall remain stayed during pendency of the appeal.

¶20

(ii) The appellant shall cooperate in the early disposal of appeal without seeking unnecessary adjournments.

¶21

(iii) The appellant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶22

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be

¶23

a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶24

The trial court is directed to transmit the photo copies of personal bond and bail bonds which would be filed by the appellant before the court below while retaining the copy of the same in his record.

¶25

14. List on 26.4.2024 for hearing the appeal on merits.

¶26

Order Date :- 3.4.2024 Muk

¶27

Digitally signed by :- MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mukti Nath v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukti Nath v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sohrab Vs State of U.P Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Sonu Pasi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Deptt.

Haribabu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Israil Khan and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. U.P. Lko. and Another

Punam Devi vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Mohd. Salman vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.