Tej Pal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri H.D. Singh, learned counsel appearing for Pravesh Verma/aggrieved/ son of the complainant- Parashuram and perused the record.

¶13

The instant criminal appeal under section 374 (2) Cr. P. C. r/w Section 415(2) B.N.S.S. against the Judgment and Order dated 04.02.2026, passed by District & Sessions Judge, Barabanki, District-Barabanki, in Sessions Case No. 1793/2021, arising out of First Information Report Lodged at Case Crime No. 71/2020, under sections 304/34 I.P.C. (initially lodged under section 308,304) in Police Station-Ghunghter, District- Barabanki, convicting and sentencing the above named appellant under section 304/34 I.P.C. for 07 years (Seven Years) imprisonment with a fine of thm Rs. 3,000/-(Three Thousand Rupees) and in default of payment of fine, the appellant to undergo further imprisonment for 15 days.

¶14

The prosecution case, in brief is that the complainant, Parshuram, filed a written report at P.S. Ghunghter, Barabanki stating that on July 6, 2020, at about 3:30 PM, his brother, Ramlakhan, son of Raghunath, resident of village- Dadera, was going to the house of Pujari, son of Ramasre, who is also a resident of village-Dadera to borrow a tractor to plough his field. When he reached in front of Prem's house in village- Dadera, Prem called

¶15

CRLA No. 632 of 2026

¶16

2

¶17

him and told him to have a cigarette. Ashok, Ramharsh, and Tejpal and sons of Fakire Lal and Shatrohan, all residents of Dadera, were already seated at Prem's house. The complainant and his brother's grandson, Virat Vishwakarma, were also passing through the same road. As soon as the complainant's brother Ramlakhan stopped, Ashok, Ramharsh, and Tejpal caught hold of him and Prem ran inside his house. He fetched a shovel (shovel) and started attacking on Ramlakhan with it. After being struck by the shovel, the complainant's brother Ramlakhan fell down on the ground and became unconscious and the blood started flowing. On Seeing this, the complainant and Virat Vishwakarma, along with their neighbours Ramshankar, son of Mewa, and Sonu, son of Puttan, all residents of Dadera, raised an alarm. After considering Ramlakahan as dead, the accused persons fled away from the spot. The complainant and Sonu, along with others somehow managed to take Ramlakhan to the Community Health Center in Ghunghter but he was referred to Charak Hospital in Lucknow. During treatment at Charak Hospital, Lucknow, the complainant's brother, Ramlakhan, died at 10 PM on that night on 06.07.2020.

¶18

Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that after investigation of the case, the police submitted a charge sheet against the accused Prem, who has been attributed the role of assailant in the FIR as well as in the statement of witnesses.The role assigned the appellant in the the incident is that they caught hold of victim Ram Lakhan and Prem struck him by shovel. The investigating officer did not find any complicity of the appellant in the offense as well as the co-accused Ashok Kumar and Ram Harsh @ Ramharakh and submitted the charge sheet against accused Prem only. However, during trial, on application of Parashuram, the complainant, the court summoned the appellant and co-accused Ashok Kumar and Ram Harsh @ Ramharakh to face the trial as additional accused in exercise of power under section 319 Cr.P.C..

¶19

Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that PW-3 Priyanka Yadav, who was represented as an eyewitness in the case, had not feigned the ignorance of such incident during her evidence before the trial court. However, PW-1, complainant Parashuram and PW-2 Virat Vishwakarma

¶20

CRLA No. 632 of 2026

¶21

3

¶22

have supported the FIR version.

¶23

Learned counsel for the appellant lastly submits that the appellant is assigned the role of catching hold of the victim, which is false.The main role of causing fatal injury to the deceased is attributed to co-accused Prem in the evidence of witnesses as well as the FIR. The appellant was on bail during trial and he did not misuse the liberty of bail. He submits that the appeal is a new one and is not likely to be heard in the near future due to heavy backlog. The appellants undertake that they shall abide by the condition as imposed by this court if they have been granted liberty of bail.

¶24

Per Contra, Learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Shri H.D. Singh, learned counsel appearing for Pravesh Vishwakarma/ aggrieved/son of complainant oppose the prayer of the appellants and submit that the appellant and co-accused Ashok Kumar and Ram Harsh @ Ramharakh were hand in the gloves and conspired with main accused Prem to cause the death of the deceased Ram Lakhan. Although the role of causing fatal injury is attributed to co-accused Prem but the appellant is stated to have caught hold of the victim to facilitate the attack. The deceased suffered three head injuries in the incident, which is evident from the postmortem report. They also submitted that the deceased was assaulted by accused persons in a concerted manner, due to which he received fatal injuries and died during treatment the same night. The FIR was lodged after cremation of the dead body of the deceased and there was no inordinate delay in lodging the FIR.

¶25

Considering the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the nature of the evidence, the nature of the allegations, the fact of the quantum of sentence awarded to them, the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the previous animosity between the appellant and the informant side, and the fact that the appellant is not stated to be the author of the fatal injuries allegedly received by the deceased, and his case is distinguishable from the case of main accused, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail.

¶26

CRLA No. 632 of 2026

¶27

4

¶28

Let the appellant, namely, Tej Pal be released on bail in the aforesaid Sessions Trial number during the pendency of appeal on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶29

On acceptance of bail bonds and personal bonds, the lower court shall transmit photostat copies thereof to this Court for being kept on record.

¶30

The appellant has undertaken not to indulge into any anti-social activity particularly against the informant and in the event of any such incident it shall be open to the complainant to make an application for cancellation of bail.

¶31

So for as the fine is concerned, it is clarified that the fine is not stayed.

¶32

Order of Appeal

¶33

Office to get the paper book prepared within four weeks and list thereafter in due course for hearing.

¶34

(Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)

¶35

May 15, 2026 dk/

¶36

Digitally signed by :- DEVENDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Tej Pal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tej Pal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sharath Chandrasekhar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Amarjeet and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Nyay Lucknow and Another

Arvind Kumar Alias Arvind Trivedi and 5 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home /Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Ankit Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Sachin Prajapati vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko. and Another

Naimul Haq Khan @ Raju vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another