HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 473 of 1988 Court No. - 82 HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J. 1. The instant criminal appeal, has been filed by the accused-appellants namely Jaipal, Bani Singh, Ramesh, Ranvir, and Ram Charan residents of village Sihora, Police Station Raya, District Mathura against the Judgement and order of conviction dated 16.12.1987 passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Mathura in Sessions Trial No. 516 of 1987 whereby sentencing the appellants except Jaipal under Sections 147, 323/149 I.P.C., and the accused appellant Jaipal has been sentenced vide order dated 06.01.1988 under Sections 323/149 I.P.C., whereby all the appellants have been released on probation of good conduct subject to their furnishing bonds (personal and two sureties for a sum of Rs. 2000/- each). 2. During the pendency of the instant appeal, the accused appellants nos. nos. 2, 3 and 5 namely Bani Singh, Ramesh and Ram Charan have died vide report of concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate, therefore the instant appeal as against them have already been abated vide order dated 23.09.2025 and 04.11.2025 passed by co-ordinate Bench of of this court. 3. Accordingly, the instant appeal is being heard as against the appellant no.1 and 4 namely, Jai Pal and Ranvir. 4. As per the prosecution case, the informant namely, Dhiri Singh gave a written tehrir before the Station House Officer, Police Staion Raya, District Mathura with the averments that his real brother namely, Devi Singh and Onkar Singh are prosecution witnesses in a case under Section 302, 201, 364, 120-B I.P.C., and in which Ram Gopal real brother of accused-appellant Jaipal, Kishan real brother of accused-appellant Ramveer are accused and that the accused-appellants have threatened him on 12.03.1985 with respect to such threatening a case under Section 504, 506 I.P.C., was registered. On 7/8.11.1985 in the night at about 10 P.M. the informant's brother Devi Singh was going from his house to old house, the accused appellants had surrounded him and exhorted to kill him. The accused-appellant Jaipal fired upon him, accused-appellant Ram Charan has assaulted him with halberd on account of which, he became injured, on alarm, several persons came on the spot and the injured was taken to hospital. The accused persons ran away.Upon the aforesaid Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Ashutosh Gupta, Punit Kesarwani, Rajul Bhargava, Vandana Gupta Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.G.A. Jai Pal And Other .....Appellant(s) State .....Respondent(s) averments, a first information report was lodged on 07.11.1985 at about 07:30 A.M. in Case Crime No. 346A under Sections 147, 148, 324 I.P.C., at Police Station Raya, District Mathura against the accused-appellants. Thereafter the matter was entrusted for investigation and charge sheet was filed against the accused-appellants under Section 147, 148, 323 I.P.C. Upon which cognizance was taken and the case was registered as Sessions Trial No. 316 of 1987 (State Vs. Jaipal and others) under Sections 147, 148, 324 I.P.C Police Station Raya, District Mathura Thereafter charges were framed against the accused-appellants under Sections 147, 307/149/, 323/149 I.P.C. 5. During the trial, the prosecution has relied upon following documentary evidence:- (i) Written report (ii) F.I.R.. (ii) Medical reports (iii) Charge sheet 6. On the other hand, following were the oral evidence/prosecution witnesses:- (i) Dhiri Singh ( P.W.1) (ii) Devi Singh (P.W.2). (iii) Ratna (W.3). (iv) Hakim Singh (P.W.4). (v) Lachha 7. P.W.1 is the injured namely first informant. He has narrated the case of the prosecution of fact. P.W.2 is injured who has also supported the case of prosecution, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5 are the eye-witnesses of the incident and they have corroborated the prosecution version. 8. The prosecution evidence has been confronted to the accused for recording his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein all the accused persons have denied the prosecution story and the manner of incident. They have denied the allegations and have stated that they have been falsely implicated. 9. After adducing of oral as well as documentary evidence before the trial Court, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the guilt of the accused- appellants is established beyond reasonable doubt and therefore has convicted the accused-appellants nos. 2 to 5 under Sections 148, 323/149 and accused Bani Singh-appellant no.1 has been convicted under Section 147, 323/149 I.P.C., and have convicted them accordingly but instead of directing the accused-appellants for actual imprisonment, they were released on furnishing bonds (personal bond and two sureties for a sum of Rs. 2000/- each) under the provisions of the U.P.Probation of First CRLA No. 473 of 1988 2 Offenders for a period of one year for maintainable peace and good behaviour. 10. Challenging the impugned Judgement and order of conviction and sentence, learned counsel for the accused-appellants submits that the Court of Sessions has erred in recording the findings of conviction and sentence against the accused-appellants inasmuch as the testimony of witnesses are not reliable and the accused-appellants have been falsely implicated. He further submits that the basis of enmity in which the prosecution has alleged that the accused persons had some and caused injuries in the night has not been established that the evidence produced by the prosecution is not reliable and that the conditions as well as injuries of the doctor were exaggerated by the doctor under some influence. Learned counsel further argued that there was no source of light at the time of incident thus the accused persons could not have been identified. Thus, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court is perverse. It is thus contended that the accused-appellants have been falsely roped in the present case and is therefore liable to be acquitted from the charges levelled against them. 11. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the contentions advanced by learned counsel for the accused-appellants and submits, the learned trial Court, after considering the evidence available on record, recorded the findings of conviction in accordance with law. Therefore, there is no illegality or perversity in the judgement and order of conviction passed by the trial Court and warrants no interference by this Court. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Anil Kushwaha, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record including the original record of the trial Court. 13. So far as the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellants that testimony of witnesses are not reliable and the accused- appellants have been falsely implicated as well as the basis of enmity in which the prosecution has alleged that the accused persons had come and caused injuries in the night has not been established and that the conditions as well as injuries of the injured were exaggerated by the doctor under some influence are concerned, it may be submitted that the testimony of the witnesses are reliable and nothing incriminating could be pointed out to demonstrate that the accused-appellants have been falsely implicated. The incident alleged to have taken place at about 10:00 P.M. in the night without there being any source of light therefore it cannot be said that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not reliable. Thus the prosecution case is proved beyond reasonable doubt. 14. Upon evaluation of evidence so led in the matter, I find no perversity in the judgment so as to interfere with the findings returned by the court concerned, inasmuch as the conclusions drawn by the trial Judge concerned are clearly permissible in view of the evidence placed on record. No misreading or omission of evidence is pointed out. I find that neither any triable issue is raised before me in this appeal nor any perversity is shown in the judgment under challenge before this Court, which may persuade this Court to set aside the judgment passed by the learned trial Court. CRLA No. 473 of 1988 3 15. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 16. It is also noticeable that since the accused-appellants have been released on furnishing a personal bonds (personal bond and two sureties) for a sum of Rs. 2000/- each under the provisions of Probation of First Offenders for a period one year to maintain peace and good behaviour and this appeal is pending since last more than 38 years and nothing has been brought on record to show that the appellants have acted otherwise. Thus the sureties are discharged. 17. The trial Court record along with the copy of this order be transmitted to the court concerned forthwith. May 7, 2026 S.Ali CRLA No. 473 of 1988 4 (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHAUKAT ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad