Uttarakhand High Court
Mohit Verma And Others vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 17 July, 2026
UKHC010014322020
2026:UHC:5950
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application No.190 of 2020
Mohit Verma and others .... Applicants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and another ......... Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Present:-
Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel along with Ms. Suniti Bhatt,
learned counsel for the applicants.
Mr. S. S. Chauhan, learned DAG along with Mr. Vikas Uniyal,
learned Brief Holder for the State.
Mr. R. S. Sammal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Sarita
Bisht, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Harshit Sanwal, learned
counsel for respondent no.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Siddhartha Sah, J. (Oral)
By means of the present criminal
miscellaneous application under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, the applicant has sought
quashing of the order dated 05.12.2019 (Annexure 7), the
charge and alternate charge dated 05.12.2019 passed by
the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Haldwani
(Annexure 8), and further quashing of the entire
proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 44 of 2018, State versus
Mohit Verma and others, pending before the Court of the
1
UKHC010014322020
2026:UHC:5950
Second Additional Sessions Judge, Haldwani, District
Nainital, under Sections 302 read with 34, 120B read
with 34, and 307 read with 34 of the IPC.
2. To appreciate the submissions made on behalf
of the learned counsel for the parties, it would be apt to
refer to the background facts of the case, which are as
follows:-
On 01.11.2014, the informant/respondent No.
2 lodged an FIR against three unknown persons, alleging
therein that on 31.10.2014, three unknown persons shot
his brother, Yograj Singh, when he was returning to his
house after parking his car, due to which Yograj Singh
sustained injuries. The said FIR was lodged as FIR No.
586 of 2014, under Section 307 of the IPC at Police
Station Haldwani, District Nainital. It is the case of the
applicant/accused persons that the injured Yograj Singh
was taken to Krishna Hospital, Haldwani, and after an
improvement in his health, he was discharged from the
hospital. During the investigation, the police recorded the
statements of the injured Yograj Singh and his wife,
Sunita Singh. It is further stated in the criminal
miscellaneous application under Section 482 of the CrPC
that, unfortunately, the injured Yograj Singh died on
2
UKHC0100143220202026:UHC:5950
24th May 2015 due to multiple organ failure at Sir Ganga
Ram Hospital, New Delhi. Thereafter, on 24.09.2015, the
police filed a chargesheet against applicant Nos. 1 and 2
for the offence under Sections 302 and 120B of the IPC
and against applicant No. 3 under Section 120B of the
IPC.
It is further stated in the application that, after
obtaining bail from this Court following the addition of
Section 302 of the IPC, the applicants, on 09.07.2019,
filed an application for discharge under Section 227 of
the CrPC before the trial court, namely, the Second
Additional Sessions Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital.
By the impugned order dated 05.12.2019, the trial court
rejected the aforesaid discharge application and
proceeded to frame charges under Sections 302 read with
34 and 120B read with 34 of the IPC, and further framed
an alternate charge under Section 307 read with 34 of
the IPC against the applicants.
3. Assailing the impugned order dated
05.12.2019 and the framing of the charges under Section
302 read with 34 and Section 120B read with 34, as well
as the alternate charge under Section 307 read with 34 of
the IPC, the learned counsel for the applicants would
3
UKHC010014322020
2026:UHC:5950
draw the attention of the Court to the relevant
paragraphs of the application for discharge under Section
227 of the CrPC and submit that no post-mortem was
conducted and no inquest was held. After 15 days of the
incident, the deceased was discharged from the hospital.
He had regained his health, and long thereafter, he died
on 24.05.2015. The deceased did not die due to the
injuries caused to him on 31st October 2014, and it is
apparent that he died due to multiple organ failure,
which is not attributable to the gunshot injuries as
alleged by the prosecution. Therefore, the trial court
erred in not allowing the discharge application and in
proceeding to frame the aforesaid charges.
4. He would further submit that after his initial
discharge, 15 days after the incident, he was never again
admitted to any hospital, nor was he under any
treatment. He was admitted to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital,
New Delhi, on 28.03.2015, and he died on 24.05.2015.
After his discharge, 15 days after the incident, he himself
went to the police station to get his statement recorded
under Section 161 of the CrPC. He would thus submit
that the trial court erred in not appreciating these facts
and in rejecting his application for discharge and framing
4
UKHC010014322020
2026:UHC:5950
the charges under Section 302 read with 34 and Section
120B of the IPC and alternate charge under Section 307
read with 34 of the IPC.
5. Per contra, the learned Senior Advocate for
respondent No. 2 would draw the attention of the Court
to the medico-legal report of Krishna Hospital and
Research Centre, where the injured Yograj Singh Bisht
was taken on 31st October 2014 at 10:46 p.m. He would
refer to the multiple gunshot injuries sustained by the
injured, who later died. He would refer to the injuries
recorded in the said medical examination report dated
31st October 2014, namely: (i) gunshot wound 1 cm × 2
cm (R) supraclavicular region with irregular burnt-out
margins; (ii) gunshot wound (R) side of the neck 1 cm ×
0.5 cm, linear wound; (iii) gunshot wound (R) pinna 1 cm
× 0.5 cm, linear wound; and (iv) multiple small wounds
on the lateral aspect of the right palm and wrist.
6. The learned Senior Advocate would also draw
the attention of the Court to the statement of Dr. J. S.
Khurana of Krishna Hospital and Research Centre,
Haldwani, who stated that on 31st October 2014 at 10:46
p.m., M.S. Joshi and Umesh had brought one injured,
Yograj Singh Bisht, to the hospital and had informed him
5
UKHC010014322020
2026:UHC:5950
that some unknown persons had fired gunshots at Yograj
and injured him. He treated the injured Yograj, and after
operating on the collarbone, he extracted a bullet through
surgery, which was sealed in a bottle. There were three
gunshot injuries on the body of Yograj Singh Bisht. The
first gunshot injury was on the right collarbone, on the
outer part of the shoulder, extending inward; the second
gunshot injury was on the right side of the neck towards
the outer part; and the third gunshot injury was on the
lower side of the right ear (pinna). In addition to these,
there were injuries on the palm and wrist. In the second
gunshot injury, burnt-out margins were also found.
7. The learned Senior Counsel for respondent No. 2
would further draw the attention of the Court to the death
summary of the deceased, Yograj Singh, issued by the
Department of Medicine (Unit-3) of Sir Ganga Ram
Hospital. Referring to the said death summary, he would
submit that Yograj Singh was admitted to Sir Ganga Ram
Hospital with a history of bullet injury to right side of the
neck and right shoulder three months ago, presented with
complaints of progressively enlarging painful swelling of
neck with low grade fever for five days. The patient
had difficulty in swallowing, which was progressively
increasing, and due to the said bullet
6
UKHC010014322020
2026:UHC:5950
injury, he had developed multiple complications.
Ultimately, he succumbed to his injuries on 24th May
2015 at 6:30 a.m. in the hospital. He would further
submit that Yograj Singh died due to the bullet injury
and the complications arising therefrom.
8. Learned State Counsel would submit that,
during the investigation, the Investigating Officer
collected all the corroborative evidence and, after
completing the investigation, filed the chargesheet. At the
stage of framing of charge, the Court has to see whether
sufficient material is available for the purpose of framing
the charge.
9. It would also be relevant to mention the
statement of Yograj Singh Bisht recorded under Section
161 of the CrPC, in which he categorically stated that at
around 9:45 p.m. on 31st October 2014, he had come to
his residence in his car, and as soon as he got out of the
car, two persons, Mohit Verma and Ankur Chauhan,
fired at him, while a third person was assisting them. In
the said incident, he sustained serious injuries, and his
elder brother, Kundan Singh Bisht, lodged the FIR at
Police Station Haldwani.
7
UKHC010014322020
2026:UHC:5950
10. The trial court of the Second Additional
Sessions Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital, heard the
learned counsel for the parties on the discharge
application dated 09.07.2019, preferred on behalf of the
accused/applicants. After hearing the learned counsel for
the parties and going through the record, the trial court
noted the FIR and also observed that, from the medical
examination report on record, gunshot injuries were
found on the body of the injured person. In the matter,
the police had recorded the statement of Yograj Singh
prior to his death, and during the investigation, the
injured died at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi, on
24th May 2015. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer
submitted an application on 24.09.2015, altering the
offence from Section 307 of the IPC to Section 302 of the
IPC, and the remand of the accused persons was taken
under Section 302 of the IPC. After the investigation, a
chargesheet was filed against the accused persons under
Sections 302 and 120B of the IPC.
11. The trial court further stated in the impugned
order dated 05.12.2019 that it is a matter of evidence
whether Yograj Singh, the injured, died due to the
gunshot injuries or due to any other reason. At this
stage, the Court cannot arrive at any conclusion
8
UKHC010014322020
2026:UHC:5950
regarding the same. From the evidence available on
record in the case diary and the statements of the
witnesses, there is sufficient material on record for
framing charges under Sections 302 read with 34 and
120B read with 34 of the IPC and, in the alternative,
under Section 307 read with 34 of the IPC. Accordingly, it
proceeded to frame charges under Sections 302 read with
34 and 120B read with 34 of the IPC, and an alternate
charge under Section 307 read with 34 of the IPC.
12. After hearing the learned counsel for the
parties and upon going through the record, it is evident
that the accused persons fired at Yograj Singh, as a
result of which he sustained three gunshot injuries and
one other injury, and he subsequently died on 24th May
2015.
13. On one hand, the learned counsel for the
applicant would submit that the death of Yograj Singh is
not attributable to the gunshot injuries and that he had,
in fact, been discharged from the hospital and later got
his statement recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC.
Therefore, there is no material on record to suggest that
he died because of the gunshot injuries.
9
UKHC010014322020
2026:UHC:5950
14. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
State and the learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.
2 would submit that whether Yograj Singh died due to
the gunshot injuries or otherwise would be a matter of
evidence. The trial court has rightly come to the
conclusion that all these aspects would fall for
consideration during the trial and are matters of
evidence. Therefore, no error has been committed by the
trial court in framing the charges under Sections 302
read with 34 and 120B read with 34 of the IPC, and the
alternate charge under Section 307 read with 34 of the
IPC.
15. Since all that has been submitted on behalf of
the applicants would certainly fall for consideration
during the trial and would be the subject matter of
evidence, this Court finds that there is no error in the
impugned order and that the charges have been rightly
framed. Thus, there is no force in this criminal
miscellaneous application under Section 482 of the CrPC,
and the same is hereby dismissed. Consequently, the
interim order is hereby vacated.
(Siddhartha Sah, J.)
17.07.2026
BS
BALWANT
Digitally signed by BALWANT SINGH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=fbbd191c8bdb8b16e8ca7937deaf72a17c0
2fe2eacbf28cdf4ba7ce8640c5820,
SINGH
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=04E141DF4614F9A4D5F48346EB553
DE5185F418755DC00A7A13C14A680C3FA90,
cn=BALWANT SINGH
Date: 2026.07.18 11:15:26 +05’30’
10
