SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(All) 139

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW 
RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, ABDHESH KUMAR CHAUDHARY, JJ.
Sobran Lal – Appellant 
Versus 
State of U.P – Respondent 
JAIL APPEAL No. - 1377 of 2012
Decided On : 30-01-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Jail Appeal in Person, Nirmal Singh Yadav, Smriti
For the Respondent:Government Advocate

The conviction under Section 302 I.P.C. was upheld based on consistent eyewitness testimonies and established intent, with the sentence modified to 18 years' rigorous imprisonment.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 307, 393 - Arms Act, 1959 - Section 3/25 - Conviction for murder and robbery - Appellant sentenced to life imprisonment and fines ... The Court found the prosecution established intention and premeditation of the appellant leading to fatal gunshot injuries inflicted on the deceased. (Paras 1, 4.4, 70)

(B) Criminal Jurisprudence - The evidentiary value of injured eyewitnesses - Their testimony holds greater credence unless substantial contradictions exist - Witnesses presented a consistent narrative corroborated by medical evidence. (Paras 32, 34)

Facts of the case:
The appellant attempted to rob the deceased, resulting in fatal gunshot injuries. Multiple eyewitnesses, including the brother of the deceased, corroborated the events. The investigation led to the recovery of the firearm used in the incident. (Paras 2.1, 4.1)

Findings of Court:
The court established that the appellant acted with intention and demonstrated a premeditated mindset, upholding the charge of murder as per the legislative definitions. (Paras 66, 68)

Issues: The core issues revolved around the intent behind the appellant’s actions, the veracity of eyewitness accounts, and the judicial interpretation of evidence relating to motive. (Paras 19, 40)

Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that injured witnesses possess heightened credibility; hence, their consistent testimonies contributed significantly to establishing the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, rejecting defence's claims of reasonable doubt and provocation. (Paras 41, 56)

Result: Conviction upheld; sentence modified to 18 years of Rigorous Imprisonment without remission. (Paras 75)

Table of Content
1. conviction for murder and robbery. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. allegations of false implication and inconsistencies. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 10)
3. arguments against established motive and mens rea. (Para 11 , 12 , 14)
4. evaluating witnesses and evidentiary weight. (Para 15 , 16 , 20 , 21)
5. distinction between murder and culpable homicide. (Para 36 , 60 , 69)
6. modification of sentence while affirming conviction. (Para 75 , 76 , 77)

JUDGMENT :

Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary, J.

1. The present Jail Appeal has been preferred by the appellant/ accused- Sobran Lal against the common judgment and order dated 04.08.2012 passed by the Special/Additional Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri in (i) Sessions Trial No. 854 of 2008 arising out of Crime No. 201 of 2008 (State V/s Hari Om alias Bantu and Another), whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced for the substantive offences under Section 302 I.P.C. for the punishment of life imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and fine stipulation, under Section 307 I.P.C. for 10 years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and fine stipulation, under Section 393 I.P.C. for 07 years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 3,000/- and fine stipulation, and (ii) Sessions Trial No. 855 of 2008 arising out of Crime No. 203 of 2008 (State V/s Sobran Lal), under Section 3/25 Arms Act for 03 years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and fine stipulation. All sentences were directed to run concurrently in view of Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as to ‘Cr.P.C.’).

CASE OF THE PROSECUTION

2. The case of the prosecution as elaborated by the learned Trial Court in the impugned judgment is briefly encapsulated as herein under:

2.1 As per the version of the complainant- Neeraj Kumar Soni (P.W.-1), on the day of the incident i.e. on 29.02.2008 at 5.30 PM, when he was sitting at his jewellery shop situated on Gulauli Road, two persons riding a motorcycle attempted to rob his elder brother-Manoj Soni and tried to snatch the bag in which his brother was carrying jewellery and cash while returning home.

2.2 On raising alarm, local residents of the neighborhood including Saur Alam (P.W.-3), Narendra Kumar Verma (P.W.-4), Surendra Chandra Gupta, Sanjay Mishra etc. gathered at the spot and challenged the miscreants. Thereupon, one of the miscreants took out a pistol from his pant and fired at his elder brother- Manoj Soni with intent to kill, which hit his brother on the left side of his body, causing a fatal gunshot injury. When the informant/complainant tried to save his brother and intervened, the the other miscreant assaulted him with a knife several times with the intent to kill him, causing injury to his shoulder and hands.

2.3 Somehow, with the assistance of the neighborhood, both the miscreants were apprehended at the spot with a pistol, live cartridge, empty cartridge, and a knife along with their motorcycle bearing number UP25U3803, chassis No. DSVBME34762.

2.4 On being questioned, one of the aforesaid miscreants told his name as Hari Om alias Bantu, son of Shriram Sharma, resident of Nai Basti, infront of Power House, G.T Road, Kasba and Police Station Fatehganj East and the other told his name as Sobran Lal Yadav (Appellant), son of Omkar Yadav, resident of Saidpur Manjha, Police Station Fatehganj East, District Bareilly.

2.5 Subsequently, his injured brother- Manoj Soni was taken to the Government Hospital at Mohammadi by the neighbours and his younger brother Pankaj Soni (P.W.-2), where he was declared dead. The said incident became a cause of terror in the entire neighborhood of Mohammadi, resulting in panic and closure of shops and the entire market in the locality, causing disturbance of public order.

2.6 Based on the aforesaid written information (Exhibit-Ka-1) given by the complainant- Neeraj Kumar Soni (P.W.-1) an F.I.R No. 62/2008 (Exhibit Ka-14) under Section 393, 302, 307 I.P.C. was lodged on 29.02.2008 at 18:15 PM relat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top