IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SLP (CRL) NO. OF 2015

IN THE MATTER OF:

MANOJ PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH RESPONDENTS

PAPERBOOK

(FOR INDEX PLEASE SEE INSIDE)

[Comment:This is the cover-page which is pasted on top of

the paperbook]
 INDEX

S.No. Particulars Page

no.
1. Office Report on Limitation A
2. Listing Proforma A1-A2
3. Synopsis & List of Dates B-P
4. Copy of judgment and final order
dated 12.12.2014 in Criminal
Appeal No. D-227-DB of 2012
passed by the Division Bench of
the Honble High Court of
Allahabad.
5. Annexure P-1: True Typed Copy
of the FIR No. 63/2009.
6. Annexure P-2: True Typed Copy
of the Medical Report of Vijay
(PW-4) dated 1.10.2010 prepared
by Dr. Sanjeev Sharma of
Sanjeevani Hospital.
7. Annexure P-3: True Typed Copy
of the seizure memo dated
2.10.2010.
8. Annexure P-4: True Typed Copy
of the dead body memo dated
2.10.2010.
9. Annexure P-5: True Typed Copy
of the Post Mortem Report dated
3.10.2010.
10. Annexure P-6: True Typed Copy
of the Arrest memo of petitioner
dated 2.10.2010.
11. Annexure P-7 True Typed Copy
of the recovery memo dated
3.10.2010.
12. Annexure P-8: A true typed copy
 of the forensic report by Forensic
Science Laboratory, Noida dated
22.12.2010.

13. Annexure P-9: A true typed copy

of the judgment and final order by
the Ld. Sessions Court,
Ghaziabad dated 30.09.2012.

14. Crl. MP ____ of 2015: Application

for Exemption from Surrender
 [Comment: The Office Report states whether the SLP is filed within
time. If not, then an Application for condonation of delay in filing/re-filing
(ie. After curing defects in filing) is to be filed explaining reasons.
Failure to provide sufficient reason is itself a ground for dismissal of the
SLP]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SLP (CRL) NO. OF 2015

IN THE MATTER OF:

MANOJ PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH RESPONDENTS

OFFICE REPORT ON LIMITATION

1. That the Petition is within time.

2. The petition is barred by time and there is ____ days delay in

filing the Petition and condonation of ___ days in filing the

Petition

3. The petition is barred by time and there is ____ days delay in

re-filing the Petition and condonation of ___ days in re-filing

the Petition

Place:

Date:

Branch Officer
[Comment: The listing proforma helps the Supreme Court registry to classify
matters as to which subject it falls under, what is the question of law etc. so
that it can be assigned to benches hearing some designated subjects, and
similar cases can be tagged together]
LISTING PROFORMA
1. Nature of the matter
2. (a)Name(s) of Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)
(b) e-mail ID.
3. (a)Name(s) of Respondent (s)
(b)e-mail ID.
4. Number of case
5. (a)Advocate(s) for Petitioner(s)
(b)e-mail ID
6. (a) Advocate(s) for Respondent (s)
(b) e-mail ID
7. Section dealing with the matter
8. Date of the impugned Order/Judgment
8A. Name of Hon'ble Judges
8B. In Land Acquisition Matters :
i) Notification/Govt. Order No. u/s. 4,6 dated.......................issued by Centre/State of
ii) Exact purpose of acquisition & village involved.
8C. In Civil Matters :- i) Suit No., Name of Lower Court
Date of Judgment
8D. In Writ Petitions:- Catchword of other similar matters
8E. In case of Motor Vehicle Accident Matters : Vehicle No
8F. In Service Matters (i) Relevant service rule, if any (ii)G.O./Circular/Notification, if
applicable or in question
8G. In Labour Industrial Disputes Matters : I.D. Reference/Award No., if applicable
Nature of urgency
9. In case it is a Tax matter : a) Tax amount involved in the matter
b) Whether a reference/statement of the case was called for or rejected
c) Whether similar tax matters of same parties filed earlier (may be for earlier/other
Assessment Year
d) Exemption Notification/Circular No
11. Valuation of the matter :
12. Classification of the matter: (Please fill up the number & name of relevant
category with sub category as per the list circulated) No. of Subject Category with full
name : No. of sub-category with full name. Title of the Act involved (Centre/State)
14. (a) Sub-Classification (indicate Section/Article of the Statute)
(b) Sub-Section involved
(c) Title of the Rules involved (Centre/State
(d) Sub-classification (indicate Rule/Sub-rule of the Statute)
15. Point of law and question of law raised in the case
16. Whether matter is not to be listed before any Hon'ble Judge? Mention the name of
the Hon'ble Judge
17. Particulars of identical/similar cases, if any a) Pending cases
b) Decided cases with citation
17A. Was SLP/Appeal/Writ filed against same impugned Judgment/order earlier? If
yes, particulars
18. Whether the petition is against interlocutory/final order/decree in the case 19. If it
is a fresh matter, please state the name of the High Court and the Coram in the
impugned Judgment/Order
20. If the matter was already listed in this Court : a) When was it listed?
What was the Coram?.
c) What was the direction of the Court.
21. Whether a date has already been fixed either by Court or on being mentioned for
the hearing of matter? If so, please indicate the date fixed
22. Is there a caveator? If so, whether a notice has been issued to him
23. Whether date entered in the Computer?
24. If it is a criminal matter, please state : a) Whether accused has surrendered
b) Nature of offence, i.e. convicted under Section with Act
c) Sentence awarded
d) Sentence already undergone by the accused
24 e) (i) FIR/RC/etc
Date of Registration of FIR etc
Name & place of the Police Station
(ii) Name & place of Trial Court
Case No. in Trial Court and Date of Judgment
(iii) Name and place of 1st Appellate Court
Case No. in 1st Appellate Court & date of Judgment
Dated....................................

Advocate for Petitioner (S)/Appellant(s)/Respondent(s)

 LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS

[Comment: These are the relevant dates and events]

01.10.2010 At around 10 pm, Vijay (PW-4)

arrived at Ghaziabad Police Station

in an injured condition stating that

Manoj (Petitioner) had attacked him

and Ramesh (Deceased) with a

knife near Palwal forest area. An

FIR No. 63/2009 was registered by

the SI/SHO Kishan Kumar.

01.10.2010 Vijay (PW-4) who was bleeding

profusely was rushed to Sanjeevani

Hospital, Ghaziabad. A True Typed

Copy of the Medical Report dated

1.10.2010 prepared by Dr. Sanjeev

Sharma of Sanjeevani Hospital is

annexed herewith and marked as

Annexure P-2, which stated that

some cut marks on his arms and

injuries are possibly self-inflicted.

2.10.2010 Police reached the petitioners

house around 12:30 AM, which was

200 meters away from the spot

where the dead body was found. He

was found to be asleep. Police

 arrested the Petitioner and an Arrest

memo was prepared.

03.10.2010 The Autopsy was conducted by Dr.

Mehul Verma (PW-3) at the Civil

Hospital Ghaziabad.

03.10.2010 At around 2 pm, at the behest of

Petitioner, a blood stained knife was

recovered from a ditch which was

about 100 mts. away from the spot

where Rameshs body was found. It

is pertinent to note that no public

witnesses were present at the time

of recovery of the knife.

22.12.2010 Forensic Science Laboratory, Noida

submitted a forensic report Annexed

herewith as Annexure P-8 stated

that there are several finger prints

on the knife handle of which one is

of the Petitioner.

4.12.2010 The police filed a charge-sheet

under sections 302, 307 and 324

IPC.

05.2.2011 The Ld. Sessions Court, Ghaziabad

framed charges under these

sections against the Petitioner. The

 Petitioner pleaded not guilty and

claimed trial. Thereafter the trial was

conducted.

30.9.2012 The Ld. Sessions Court found the

Petitioner not guilty and acquitted

him of all the charges against him.

12.12.2014 Aggreived by this Judgment, the

State of Uttar Pradesh filed an

appeal before the Honble Allahabad

High Court. The Division Bench of

the Allahabad High Court vide D-

227/DB/12 was allowed the Appeal

and the Petitioner was convicted

and sentenced to life imprisonment.

Date of Filing Hence this SLP

SLP
 SYNOPSIS

[Comment:This is a gist of the matter]

This is a Special Leave to Appeal against the judgment and final

order dated 12.12.2014 in Criminal Appeal No. D-227-DB of 2012

passed by the Division Bench of the Honble High Court of

Allahabad. By means of the impugned judgment and final Order

the Honble High Court erroneously allowed the appeal preferred

by the Respondent herein and reversed the judgment of acquittal

into one of conviction under Section 302, 324 and 307 of the IPC

and sentenced him to life imprisonment.

The Honble High Court has erroneously held that the Petitioner

had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and has

erroneously discarded the medical examination report of PW-4

which clearly states that the injuries suffered by PW-4 were self-

inflicted merely on account of non-examiaton of the doctor. It has

further erroneously failed to consider that various finger prints

were found of the knife handle, only one set of which was that of

the Respondent. The Honble High Court has further failed to

consider that the confession of the Petitioner before the police is

not admissible as evidence and silence under section 313 CrPC

cannot be sufficient material to complete the chain of

circumstances and the Prosecution case must stand on its own

legs and not rely on deficiencies in the Defence case. The present

case therefore, over-turns a well-reasoned decision of the

Sessions Court and erroneously convicts the Respondent and

sentences him to life imprisonment.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICITON

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. _______/2015

[Arising out of the Impugned Judgment and Final Order dated

12.12.2014 passed by the Division Bench of the Honble High Court of

Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. D-227-DB of 2012]

IN THE MATTER OF: -

POSITION OF PARTIES

Before the Before the Before the

Trial Court High Court Supreme Court

MANOJ Accused Appellant Petitioner

s/o Karan Singh,
r/o House No. 91,
Palwal Forest Area,
Ghaziabad,
Uttar Pradesh

VERSUS

State of UP Prosecution Respondent Contesting

Respondent
Through,
Investigating Officer,
Police Station,
Ghaziabad,
Uttar Pradesh
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION

UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION

To,

The Honble Chief Justice

And his companion Justices

Of the Supreme Court of India

The humble petition of the Petitioner above named,

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. The present Petition is being filed under Article 136 of the

Constitution read with section 2 of the Supreme Court

(Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 seeking

Special Leave to Appeal against the judgment and final order

dated 12.12.2014 in Criminal Appeal No. D-227-DB of 2012

passed by the Division Bench of the Honble High Court of

Allahabad. By means of the impugned judgment and final Order

the Honble High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the

Petitioner and upheld his conviction under Section 302, 324and

307 of the IPC.

[COMMENT: This is the narration of the case as to how it comes

to the Supreme Court. Paragraph 2 with its sub-paras are the
facts.]
2. The facts and circumstances leading to the present petition are

briefly stated as under:-

i. On 01.10.2010, at around 10 pm, Vijay (PW-4) arrived at

the Ghaziabad Police Station in an injured condition stating

that Manoj (Petitioner) had attacked him and Ramesh

(Deceased) with a knife nearPalwal forest area. An FIR No.

63/2009 was registered by the SI/SHO Kishan Kumar (PW-

6). Vijay informed the police of the approximate place of the

offence as well as the home address of Manoj (Petitioner)

.A True Typed Copy of the FIR No. 63/2009 is annexed

herewith and marked as Annexure P-1at pages ____ to

____.
ii. Vijay (PW-4) was bleeding profusely when he came and

was rushed to Sanjeevani Hospital, Ghaziabad. A True

Typed Copy of the Medical Report dated 1.10.2010

prepared by Dr. Sanjeev Sharma of Sanjeevani Hospital is

annexed herewith and marked as Annexure P-2at pages

____ to ____. It is pertinent to note that there is one stab

injury noted on the left side of the stomach as well as some

cut marks on his arms and the report notes that these

injuries are possibly self inflicted. It is also pertinent to

note that no injury on the back of PW-4 is noted. It is further

pertinent to note that Dr. Sanjeev Sharma had died before

the commencement of the trial and hence could not be

examined as a witness.

iii. At 01.10.2010 at around 10.15 pm SI/SHO of PS

Ghaziabad, Krishan Kumar (PW-6) formed a team

comprising of 3 constables and they set out for Palwal

forest area. On conducting a search, they came across a

wrist watch of Titan make and 2 empty bottles of country

liquor at around 12.10 am. These articles were placed in

plastic bags and sealed and seizure memo prepared. A

True Typed Copy of the seizure memo dated 2.10.2010 is

annexed herewith as Annexure P-3 at pages ____ to

____.It is pertinent to note that there are no independent

witnesses who have accompanied the police during this

seizure proceeding.

iv. On conducting further search, at around 12.30 am, a dead

body of a male of about 24 years of age was found about

 50 mts. from the place where the liquor bottles and Titan

wristwatch was found. A dead body memo was prepared

and the body was sent to the Civil Hospital for post-mortem

along with Const. Ramcharan (PW-2). A True Typed Copy

of the dead body memo dated 2.10.2010 is annexed

herewith and marked as Annexure P-4at pages ____ to

____. It is pertinent to note that there is no public witness in

the case.

v. The Autopsy was conducted by Dr. MehulVerma(PW-3) at

the Civil Hospital Ghaziabad. It was found that the

deceased had died due to haemorregic shock on account of

three stab injuries and incised wounds to his liver and

abdomen. A True Typed Copy of the Post Mortem Report

dated 3.10.2010 is annexed herewith and marked as

Annexure P-5 at pages ____ to ____. The Post Mortem

Report mentions that all three injuries were sufficient in the

ordinary course to cause death and the murder weapon

was likely a sharp-cutting object such as a knife.

vi. Thereafter, around 200 meters from the place of the

recovery of the dead body, the police team led by PW-6

arrived at Petitioners house at around 1 am. The Petitioner

was found asleep at home. The Petitioners mother Gayatri

Devi (DW-1) was also at home, sleeping in a different room.

The Petitioner was arrested by PW-6 and an arrest memo

was prepared and handed over to his mother, Gayatri Devi

(DW-1). A True Typed Copy of the Arrest memo dated

2.10.2010 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure

 P-6 at pages ____ to ____. It is pertinent to note that apart

from police and DW-1, no public witnesses were present.

vii. During interrogation, the Petitioner confessed to his crime

stating that he and Ramesh (deceased) and Vijay (PW-4)

were drinking in a place in the Palwal forest area which was

about 200 mts from his home. During this time, a heated

argument took place between these persons and the

Petitioner left the scene and got a kitchen knife from his

home with blade of 6 inches in length and stabbed Ramesh

several times. On seeing this, Vijay (PW-4) started running

and Petitioner ran after him and slashed him on his back

and arms. PW-4 however managed to escape.

viii. On at 3.10.2010 at around 2 pm, at the behest of Petitioner,

recovery of a blood stained knife from a ditch covered with

mud and grasswas effected which was about 100 mts.

away from the spot where Rameshs body was found.A

recovery memo was prepared and signed by the Petitioner

and Const. Ajmal (PW-1). A True Typed Copy of the

recovery memo dated 3.10.2010 is annexed herewith as

ANNEXURE P-7 at pages ___ to ____. It is pertinent to

note that no public witnesses were present at the time of

recovery of the knife.

ix. The knife was checked for finger prints and it was found

that the Petitioners fingerprints were found to be matching.

Raj Pal (PW-5) of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Noida.

A true typed copy of the forensic report dated 22.12.2010 is

 Annexed herewith as Annexure P-8at pages ___ to ____. It

is pertinent to note that in the report, it is stated that PW-5

states that there are several finger prints on the knife

handle of which one is of the Petitioner.

x. On 24.12.2010, the police filed a charge-sheet under

sections 302, 307 and 324 IPC. On 5.2.2011, the Ld.

Sessions Court, Ghaziabad framed charges under these

sections against the Petitioner. The Petitioner pleaded not

guilty and claimed trial.

xi. The Prosecution examined 6 witnesses. The Statement of

the Petitioner was recorded under section 313 CrPC

wherein the Petitioner remained silent throughout his

examination and did not answer any questions. The

Defence examined one witness who was the mother of the

Petitioner who stated that the Petitioner had not gone out

on the night of 1.10.2010 and had gone to sleep after dinner

at around 9 pm.

[Comment: Notice how in each of the documents relied

upon, the facts which are most important are mentioned]

xii. The Ld. Sessions Court on 30.9.2012 found the Petitioner

not guilty and acquitted him of all the charges against him.

Annexed herewith as Annexure P-9 is a copy of the

judgment of the Ld. Sessions Court at pg. ___ to pg. ____.

It is pertinent to note that the Ld. Trial Court has held that

this appeared to be a case wherein the Petitioner was

wrongly implicated and where the role of PW-4 was

 suspicious as it appears that he had inflicted injuries on

himself. It further held that there was no public witness who

was involved in the entire proceeding and the recovery

effected from the Petitioner appeared to be done under

coercion. The Ld. Sessions Court further directed that the

police investigate the role of PW-4.

xiii. Against this, the State of Uttar Pradesh filed an appeal

before the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court vide

D-227/DB/12 which was allowed on 12.12.2014 and the

Petitioner was convicted and sentenced to life

imprisonment. (Impugned Order). The Honble Court held

that the Prosecution had proved beyond doubt that the

Petitioner had committed the murder of Ramesh and had

attempted to murder Vijay (PW-4). It stated that the medical

evidence of the Post Mortem was supported by PW-4s

testimony but the medical examination report of PW-4 was

not admissible in evidence as the treating doctor was not

examined as a witness. It further held that the knife, bearing

the Petitioners finger prints was recovered at the behest of

the Petitioner who had confessed to his crime. The Honble

High Court also held that even excluding PW-4s evidence,

there was enough circumstantial evidence to convict the

Petitioner and his silence under section 313 CrPC was

enough to complete the chain of circumstances to establish

the offences against the Petitioner.

[Comment: Notice how the above 2 paragraphs deal with

the judgments of the Trial Court and High Court sa well as

 the reasons for their findings. Since in this case the Trial

Court has held in your clients favour whereas the High

Court has held against your client, you will in your Grounds

try to support the Trial courts reasoning and impugn the

High Courts reasoning]

xiv. PW-4 also challenged the order of the Ld. Sessions Court

vide WP (Crl) 2031/2012 which was allowed on the grounds

that the Ld. Sessions Court did not have sufficient basis to

proceed against Vijay (PW-4). The Petitioner herein was not

a party to WP (Crl) 2031/2012.

[Comment: This deals with the other proceedings arising

out of the trial.]

xv. In view of the Judgment and Final Order of the Honble High

Court of Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. D-227-DB of

20012, the Petitioner preferring the present Special Leave

Petition.

3. The Petitioner states that he has filed no other Special Leave

Petition against the Impugned Order and Judgment, being the

Criminal Appeal No. D-227-DB of 20012 dated 12.12.2014,

passed by the Honble High Court of Allahabad.

[Comment: This declaration is required to be given whereby if

there is any other proccedings pending, it should be brought to the

notice of the court. Sometimes, several proceedings arise from

the same facts or same questions of law and are tagged together.

It is embarrassing for the courts to have different decisions from

the same set of facts.]

4. Being aggrieved by the Impugned Judgment and Final Order

dated 12.12.2014 in Crl. Appeal D-227-DB, the Petitioner seeks

the Special Leave of this Honble Court to appeal on the following

amongst other grounds, each of which are pressed in the

alternative and without prejudice to each other:

[Comment: This following paras A-K are grounds for challenge]

A. For that the Honble High Court has erred in the

appreciation of evidence and has wrongly overturned the

decision of the Ld. Sessions Court which found

inconsistencies in evidence and the role of Vijay PW-4 to be

suspicious

B. For that the Honble High Court has erred in failing to

appreciate the fact that the Medical Report of medical

examination of PW-4 which shows that the injuries are

possibly self inflicted.

C. For that the Honble High Court excluded medical

examination report of PW-4 solely on the ground that the

examining doctor was already decased.

D. For that the Honble High Court failed to consider that the

confession made by the Petitioner is inadmissable in law as

it was an extra-judicial confession made before the police

and no public witnesses were joined in the recovery of the

alleged murder weapon.

E. For that the Honble High Court failed to consider that PW-5

who was the finger print expert has stated in his report that

the Petitioners finger prints were amongst other finger

prints on the knife.

 F. For that the Honble High Court has wrongly stated that the

silence of the Accused under his statement under section

313 CrPC could be used to complete the chain of

circumstances against the Accused.

G. For the Honble High Court has failed to consider that the

circumstantial evidence which existed against the Accused

was insufficient to fasten guilt and did not as required by the

law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court of India in the

case of Haresh Mohandas Rajput v. State of Maharashtra &

Ors. (Crl. Appeal 2030-31 of 2009) and was not conclusive

and did not exclude every other hypothesis other than the

one to be proved.

H. For that the Honble Court has failed to take into

consideration the evidence of DW-1 although she was the

mother of the Petitioner.

I. For that the Honble High Court has not applied any

principles of proportionality and has passed a sentence of

life imprisonment without considering the fact that the

Petitioner has no prior conviction.

J. For that the Honble High Court has erred by reappreciating

the evidence without having good reason to do so and has

caused grave injustice

K. Any other ground that may be raised with the permission of

this Honble Court.

PRAYER

5. Wherefore in the light of the above, the Petitioner herein most

humbly submits that this Honble Court may be pleased to:

 a. Grant Special Leave to Appeal against the Judgment and

the final Order dated 12.12.2014 passed by the Honble

High Court of Allahabad in Criminal Appeal no. D-227-DB of

2012;

b. Pass such other Order or Orders as this Honble Court may

deep fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the

case.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER AS IN

DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY

[Comment: This is the prayer clause]

DRAWN BY: FILED BY

[Drafting Advocate] [Filing Advocate]

[Often the AOR drafts too]

ADVOCATE ADVOCATE ON RECORD

ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER
Drawn: [Place]
Filed on:[Date]
[Comment: This is the AORs certificate which states that no new facts
are stated other than what was stated in the courts below. If new
facts/documents are used then a separate I.A. has to be filed stating
those facts/documents.]
IN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

S.L.P. (CRL.) NO. OF 2015

IN THE MATTER OF:

MANOJ PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH RESPONDENT

CERTIFICATE

Certified that the Special Leave Petition is confined only to the pleadings

before the Court/Tribunal whose Order is challenged and the documents

relied upon in those proceedings. No additional facts, documents or

grounds have been taken or relied upon in the Special Leave Petition. It

is further certified that the copies of the documents / annexures attached

to the Special Leave Petition are necessary to answer the question of

law raised in the petition or to make out grounds urged in the Special

Leave Petition for consideration of this Hon'ble Court. This Certificate is

given on the basis of the instructions given by the Petitioner whose

affidavit is filed in support of this Special Leave Petition.

NEW DELHI

DATE:

SD/-

(ADVOCATE ON RECORD)
[Comment:This is the Affidavit to be signed by client and notarized at

the place of signing]

IN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

S.L.P. (CRL.) NO. OF 2015

(AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND FINAL ORDER DATED 12.12.2014

PASSED BY THE LD. DIVISION BENCH OF THE HONBLE HIGH

COURT OF ALLAHABAD IN CRL. APPEAL NO. D-227-DB OF 2012)

IN THE MATTER OF:

MANOJ PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH RESPONDENT

AFFIDAVIT

I, MANOJ, aged about 50 years, son of LATE Mr. Karan Singh, Resident

of House No. 91,Palwal Forest Area, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201002

do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state as follows:

1. That I am the Petitioner in the captioned Special Leave Petition and

am conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case, and as

such, I am competent to swear the present affidavit.

2. That I have read the contents of the accompanying Synopsis and

List of Dates (pages ___ to ___), Special Leave Petition (pages __

to ___) (Paras ___ to ___) and application filed along with the

same, all of which have been drafted under my instructions and I

 state that the contents mentioned therein are true to the best of my

knowledge and belief.

3. That the Annexures to the accompanying Special Leave Petition

are true typed copies of their respective originals.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION

Verified at _____ on this the ___ day of ______ 2015 that the

contents of Paras 1-3 of the foregoing affidavit are true and correct

to my knowledge, that no part thereof is false, and nothing material

has been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT
[Comment: This is a separate Application which is filed along with the
main petition. Sometimes, the Court may issue notice to the other side
specifically to respond to the applications]

IN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Crl MP. NO. ____ of 2015

IN
S.L.P. (CRL.) NO. OF 2015

(AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND FINAL ORDER DATED 12.12.2014

PASSED BY THE LD. DIVISION BENCH OF THE HONBLE HIGH

COURT OF ALLAHABAD IN CRL. APPEAL NO. D-227-DB OF 2012)

IN THE MATTER OF:

MANOJ PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH RESPONDENT

APPLICATION SEEKING EXEMPTION FROM SURRENDER

To,

The Honble Chief Justice

And his companion Justices

Of the Supreme Court of India

The humble petition of the Petitioner above named,

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. The present Petition is being filed under Article 136 of the

Constitution read with section 2 of the Supreme Court

(Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 seeking

Special Leave to Appeal against the judgment and final order

dated 12.12.2014 in Criminal Appeal No. D-227-DB of 2012

 passed by the Division Bench of the Honble High Court of

Allahabad. By means of the impugned judgment and final Order

the Honble High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the

Petitioner and upheld his conviction under Section 302, 324 and

307 of the IPC.

2. It is most respectfully submitted that the facts and circumstances

are more carefully set out in the accompanying List of Dates and

Special Leave Petition. For the sake of brevity and in order to

avoid repetition the same are not being reproduced herein and it

is most respectfully prayed that the same may be read as part and

parcel of the present application.

3. It is most respectfully submitted that the Honble High Court has

erroneously reversed the decision of acquittal by the Ld Trial

Court and convicted the Petitioner under sections 302/324/307

IPC and which conviction and sentence has been erroneously

upheld by the Honble Court without any material/evidence on

record to prove his guilt.

4. While passing the impugned order, the Honble High Court has

failed to appreciate the medical evidence, misapplied evidentiary

principles and basic principles of criminal jurisprudence and has

failed to notice that there was no credible evidence to prove the

injuries attributed to the Petitioner were caused and has merely

relied upon the oral testimony of the eye witness without any

corroboration by the medical evidence brought on record without

there also being no independent witnesses in the entire case.

 5. The Petitioner submits that he has been on bail during the

pendency of the trial and has never misused the liberty granted by

the Court below. The Petitioner further states, that even after

conviction, the Petitioner has been on bail and the incarceration of

the Petitioner will cause grave hardship to himself and his family

members. The Petitioner has a good case and is likely to

succeed.

6. That the Petitioner is a permanent resident of Ghaziabad District,

Haryana and has deep roots in the society. That there is

possibility of the Petitioner absconding. The Petitioner is a law

abiding citizen. It is therefore in the interest of justice that this

Honble Court may be pleased to exempt the Petitioner from

surrendering.

PRAYER
It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Honble Court may be

pleased to:

(i) exempt the Petitioner from surrendering; and

(ii) pass such other order or orders as this Honble Court may deem

fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case

and thereby render justice.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER SHALL AS

DUTY BOUND EVER PRAY

Drawn and filed by,

Drawn on:
Filed on:
[Comment: Signature and Name of] ADVOCATE ON RECORD
Advocate for the Petitioner