Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Satya Ram Maurya @ Sati Ram Maurya & Another v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5835 of 2005 [2006] RD-AH 11896 (20 July 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Hon'ble Mukteshwar Prasad, J.

Hon'ble Vinod Prasad, J.

We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A. for the State. We have gone through the impugned judgment as well as lower court record.

It is contended on behalf of the appellants that none saw the appellants committing murder of Saytabhama, the deceased. The entire case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. The appellant no.1 is father-in-law of the deceased and appellant no.2 is neighbourer of appellant no.1. It is also urged that both the appellants were on bail and did not misuse the liberty of bail. It is contended that P.W.1 Ram Piyare and P.W.3 Ram Bachan, who are said to be independent witnesses, did not support the prosecution version and turned hostile. So far as the testimony of brother and father of the deceased is concerned they too failed to show as to how both the appellants are connected with the murder of Satyabhama. It is also urged that the deceased was residing in her Mayka at the time of alleged incident and not in her Sasural. She disappeared from her Mayka and was done to death and her dead body was thrown in the well by unknown person. There is no evidence of last seen.

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has submitted that in view of the ante-mortem injuries, it is obvious that the lady had her unnatural death. Since the appellant no.1 wanted to have illicit relationship with the lady and on her refusal, she was killed by the appellants.

We have considered the contentions raised on behalf of the parties. We have gone through the trial court record also carefully. In our opinion, both the appellants are entitled to be released on bail during pendency of appeal.

Let the appellants- Satya Ram Maurya @ Sati Ram Maurya and Ram Jeet Maurya be enlarged on bail during pendency of appeal on their executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of C.J.M., Basti in S.T. No. 265 of 2000 State Vs. Satya Ram and others provided the appellants deposit the entire amount of fine in the court below within a period of one month from today.

The Chief Judicial Magistrate will send photocopies of the bail bonds to this Court immediately after its acceptance.




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.