Criminal Appeal against judgment under section376
In the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow
Cri. Appeal
No. of 2024
Pankaj Kumar Verma, S/o Shiv
Kumar, R/o-Mohalla-Tulsinagar, Police Station Gauriganj, District-Bahraich.
------- Appellant
(In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ------ Respondent
index
|
Sl.No. |
Particulars |
Page No. |
|
1. |
Memo of Criminal Appeal |
|
|
2. |
Certified copy of Judgment and Order dated 09-07-2024 |
|
|
3. |
Bail Application U/s 389 Cr.P.C. |
|
|
4 |
Affidavit in support of bail application |
|
|
5 |
Memo/Power |
|
(Vinod Kumar Pandey)
Lucknow Advocate
Date: 21-07-2024 Counsel for the Appellant
Mobile
No.9415381583
Code-
Session Trial No:258/2024
Case Crime No. 124 of 2024
U/s- 363/366/376 I.P.C.
Police Station-4
District-Bahraich
In the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow
Cri. Appeal No. of 2024
5 Rs Stamp
Pankaj Kumar Verma, S/o Shiv Kumar, R/o-Mohalla-Tulsinagar, Police Station Gauriganj,
District-Bahraich.
-------
Appellant
(In
Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ------
Respondent
CRIMINAL Appeal U/S-374(2) Cr.P.C.
Against judgment order dated 09-07-2024 passed by Sri Ravindra Vikram Singh,Additional Session Judge, Court No.-8, Bahraich in Session Trial No. 141 of 2011, Crime No. 124 of 2010 U/s-363/366/376 IPC Police Station Gauriganj, District Bahraich convicting and sentencing the Appellant U/s-366 I.P.C. to Rigorous Imprisonment of four years and fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo for 3 months simple imprisonment, and U/s 376 I.P.C. to Rigorous Imprisonment of 7 years and fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo for 6 months simple imprisonment. All the sentences have run concurrently and the period spent in jail be calculated amongst the following other grounds:-
grounds
(A) Because the conviction of the appellant is not
based on the evidence which is on record and is based on assumption and
presumptions?
(B) Because the Learned Trial Court has failed to
evaluate the evidence on record.
(C) Because the findings for conviction of the
appellant given by the Trial Court are preserve in the eyes of law.
(D) Because the Learned Trial Court has erred in law and in
fact by convicting the appellant.
(E) Because there is a major
contradiction in the statement of the prosecution witnesses which was ignored
by the trial court.
(F) Because as per the
prosecution story the incident has taken place in the night of 29-03-2010 and the
F.I.R. was lodged on 31-03-2010 and the informant who is the PW-1 has not
disclosed any where about the delay in lodging the F.I.R.
(G) Because, PW-2 who is the victim
of the case has stated in his statement recorded on oath before the trial court
that the appellant has kidnapped her by motorcycle from the way when she was
going to shop to purchase sugar and tea leaf and took her to his house which is
situated about two or three houses away from her house.
(H) Because the PW-2 who is the victim of the case has gone with the appellant
to the house of a counsel and thereafter to Bahraich and stay with the
appellant about three days but she does not make alarm anywhere which shows it
to be a consenting party.
(I) Because as per the statement
of doctor the victim is major and her age is more than 19 years.
(J) Because the victim has
married with the appellant with her free consent in a temple situated at Gauriganj
and she is major as such the conviction U/s 376 I.P.C.is bad in the eyes of
law.
(K) Because the father of the victim wants to marry the victim to
someone as such the victim has left her house and married with the appellant.
(L) Because, P.W.-2 the victim has filed a complaint against her
relatives in which her statement U/s 200 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 31-03-2010 by
the Magistrate in which she has stated that her father sold her to Sonu in
Rs.10000/- on which she left her house and had married with the appellant in a
temple.
(M) Because, the
appellant has made a prayer before the trial court that the statement U/s 200
Cr.P.C. annexed in file be read in defense but the trial court has ignored the
same without any reason.
(N) Because, the learned trial
has failed to consider the defense evidence which is in favor of the appellant.
(O) Because, the trail Court has
ignored the defense evidence.
(P) Because, the co-accused has
been acquitted from the charges.
(Q) Because, the appellant is
innocent and has not commit any
offence.
prayer
Wherefore,
It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to
admit the appeal and summon the Trial Court record and set aside the impugned
judgment and order dated 09-07-2024 passed by Sri Ravindra Vikram Singh, Additional Session Judge, Court No.-8 Bahraich passed in Session
Trial No. 141of 2011, Crime No. 122 of 2010 U/s-363/366/376 IPC Police Station
Gauriganj, District Bahraich and the appellant may kindly be acquitted.
It is further prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly also be pleased to suspend the conviction and sentence of the appellant and to release the appellant on bail during the pendency of this criminal appeal.
Dated : 21-07-2024 Advocate
Counsel for the appellant
Code-
Session Trial No:258/2024
Case Crime No. 122 of 2010
U/s- 363/366/376 I.P.C.
Police Station-Gauriganj
District-Bahraich
In the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow
Cri.
Misc. Application No. of 2024
In;re
Cri. Appeal No. of 2024
5 Rs Stamp
Pankaj Kumar Verma, S/o Shiv Kumar, R/o-Mohalla-Tulsinagar, Police Station Gauriganj,
District-Bahraich.
------- Appellant
(In
Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ------ Respondent
FIRST BAIL APPLICATION
UNDER SECTION 389 Cr.P.C.
For
the facts, reasons and circumstances stated in the accompanying affidavit, it
is most respectfully prayed that the above-named appellant may kindly be
released on bail during the pendency of this criminal appeal which would serve
in the ends of justice.
Lucknow. (Vinod
Kumar Pandey)
Dated: 21-07-2024 Advocate
Counsel for the appellant
Note:
1- No other
criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant before this Hon’ble High Court
or at
2- The appellant was
on bail during the course of criminal trial.
3- The appellant
is in jail since 09-07-2024
Lucknow. (Vinod Kumar Pandey)
Dated: 21-07-2024 Advocate
Counsel for the appellant
Code-
Session Trial No:258/2024
Case Crime No. 122 of 2010
U/s- 363/366/376 I.P.C.
Police Station-Gauriganj
District-Bahraich
In the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow
Cri. Appeal
No. of 2024
10 Rs Stamp, Photo, Coupon
Pankaj Kumar Verma, S/o Shiv Kumar, R/o-Mohalla-Tulsinagar, Police Station Gauriganj,
District-Bahraich.
------- Appellant
(In
Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ------ Respondent
Affidavit in
Support of Bail Application U/s 389 Cr.P.C.
I, Ram kumar @ Shiv kumar aged
about 80 years, S/o Late Nagai, Profession-employed Religion-Hindu,Qualification-B.A.,R/o-Mohalla-Rampurwa,Kasba
Thana Gauriganj, District-Bahraich the deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and state
on oath as under :-
1. That the deponent is the father of the appellant
and is doing pairavi on his behalf and as such he is full conversant with the
facts and circumstances of the case.
2. That the conviction of the appellant is not
based on the evidence which is on record and is based on assumption and
presumptions.
3. That the Learned Trial Court has failed to
evaluate the evidence on record.
4. That the findings for conviction of the
appellant given by the Trial Court are preserve in the eyes of law.
5. That the Learned Trial Court has
erred in law and in fact by convicting the appellant.
6. That there is a major contradiction
in the statement of the prosecution witnesses which was ignored by the trial
court.
7. That as per the prosecution
story the incident has taken place in the night of 29-03-2010 and the F.I.R.
was lodged on 31-03-2010 and the informant who is the PW-1 has not disclosed
anywhere about the delay in lodging the F.I.R.
8. That the PW-2 who is the
victim of the case has stated in his statement recorded on oath before the
trial court that the appellant has kidnapped her by motorcycle from the way
when she was going to shop to purchase sugar and tea leaf and took her to his
house which is situated about two or three houses away from her house.
9. That the PW-2 who is the
victim of the case has gone with the appellant to the house of a counsel and
thereafter to Bahraich and stay with the appellant about three days but she
does not make alarm anywhere which shows it to be a consenting party.
10. That as per the statement of
doctor the victim is major and her age is more than 19 years.
11. That the victim has married
with the appellant with her free consent in a temple situated at Gauriganj and
she is major as such the conviction U/s 376 I.P.C.is bad in the eyes of law.
12. That the father of the victim
wants to marry the victim to someone as such the victim has left her house and
married with the appellant.
13. That the P.W.-2 the victim has
filed a complaint against her relatives in which her statement U/s 200 Cr.P.C.
was recorded on 31-03-2010 by the Magistrate in which she has stated that her
father sold her to Sonu in Rs.10000/- on which she left her house and had
married with the appellant in a temple.
14. That the appellant has made a
prayer before the trial court that the statement U/s 200 Cr.P.C. annexed in
file be read in defense but the trial court has ignored the same without any
reason.
15. That the learned trial has
failed to consider the defense evidence which is in favor of the appellant.
16. That the trail Court has
ignored the defense evidence.
17. That the co-accused has been
acquitted from the charges.
18. That the appellant is innocent
and has not committed any offence.
Lucknow
Dated: 21-07-2024
Deponent
VERIFICATION
I, the above named deponent, do hereby verify that the contents of
paras 1,12,13,18 of this affidavit are
true to my personal knowledge and the contents of paras 2 to 11 14,15,16,17 are
believed to be true on the basis of record and the legal advice received by the
deponent. No part of it is false and
nothing material has been concealed.
So help me God.
Lucknow
Dated: 21-07-2024 Deponent
I, identify the deponent
who has put his signature/L.T.I. before me on the basis of record produced by
him.
(Vinod Kumar Pandey)
Advocate
AOR No.0839
Mobile
No.9415381583
Solemnly affirmed before me on ……………….at …… a.m./p.m. by Ram Kumar @
Shiv Kumar the deponent who has been identified by Shri Vinod Kumar Pandey, Advocate High Court, Lucknow bench, Lucknow.
I, have satisfied myself by
examining the deponent that he understands the contents of this affidavit which
has been read over and explained to him by me.
Best efforts
ReplyDelete