Uttarakhand High Court
Gopal Lal Sah And Others vs State Of Uttarakhand on 3 August, 2026
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
UKHC010032672015
2026:UHC:6754-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Appeal No. 111 of 2015
Gopal Lal Sah and Others ...... Appellants
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand ..... Respondent
Present:
Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Mamta Bisht, Advocate for
the appellants.
Mr. J.S. Virk, A.A.G. for the State.
Coram: Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Hon'ble Siddhartha Sah, J.
JUDGMENT
Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The instant appeal has been preferred against
judgment and order dated 18.03.2015/21.03.2015, passed in
Sessions Trial No.07 of 2014, State Vs. Gopal Lal Sah and Others,
by the court of Sessions Judge, Bageshwar. By it, the appellants
have been convicted under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and
sentenced to undergo imprisonment of life with a fine of Rs.
5,000/- each under Section 302 IPC. In default of payment of fine,
the appellants shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of
six months.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record.
3. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is as follows.
The deceased Darban Singh had gone to attend a marriage in
village Jalekh on 11.02.2014. He did not return on that date. Next
day, his dead body was found in a rocky valley. It was almost dark
2
when the dead body was recovered from the forest. Therefore, on
13.02.2014, the inquest of the deceased was prepared by PW4,
S.I. Mohan Chandra Joshi, which is Ex. A-2. The witnesses to the
inquest had opined that the deceased died due to fall from the
hills. On 13.02.2014 itself, the post mortem of the deceased was
conducted by PW5, Dr. N.S. Toliya, and the following injuries were
noted on the person of the deceased:-
i) "Lacerated wound 1x6x3 cm, left side
forehead along its length bone deep brain
matter coming out and clotted blood
present;
ii) Lacerated wound of diameter 1x5 cm left
side lower lip along its length clotted blood
present;
iii) Multiple injury bilateral legs to ankle joint
& upper chest to neck region; and
iv) Abrasion 2x1 cm. Rt. Knee joint, 2x1 cm.
Left Knee joint and 2x1 cm. Rt. Side of
back region."
As per PW5, Dr. N.S. Toliya, the cause of death was due to ante
mortem head injuries, due to RTA. During the course of
arguments, learned counsel for the parties submit that RTA
stands for Road Traffic Accident. It so happened that after about 8
days, on 20.02.2014, PW2, Khasti Devi, the wife of the deceased,
lodged an FIR, at Police Station Kapkot, District Bageshwar.
According to the FIR, on 11.02.2014, at 11:00 a.m., the deceased
had gone to attend the marriage of the daughter of Mohan Singh
in village Jalekh. He did not return on that date. Next day, she
enquired from Ravi Gariya, who was the tent house owner in the
marriage. He told PW2, Khasti Devi, the informant, that at 8:00
p.m., the deceased had left the wedding venue. PW2, Khasti Devi,
enquired from various persons about the whereabouts of her
3
husband, the deceased, but she could not locate him.
Subsequently, she came to know that the dead body of the
deceased was lying somewhere in the forest. Police was informed.
The FIR records that subsequently, it was revealed that on the
date of incident, in the wedding, at about 8:30 p.m., the relatives
of Mohan Singh did marpeet with the deceased, which was
witnessed by Basanti Devi, daughter of Hayat Singh, Dhan Singh,
son of Aan Singh, Nandi Devi, daughter of Veer Singh, Ravi
Gariya, son of Kushal Singh, Pradeep Singh and Kushal Singh,
etc. A suspicion was raised that the relatives of Mohan Singh had
killed the deceased. The FIR is Ex. A-1, based on which chik FIR
Ex. A-8 was recorded and Case Crime No.8 of 2014, under Section
302 IPC was lodged at Police Station Kapkot, District Bageshwar.
The extract of General Diary is Ex.A-9.
4. The Investigating Officer took into custody a chair
on which, on the date of wedding, the deceased was seated. The
recovery memo is Ex.A-10. Site plan, Ex.A-11 was prepared. In
fact, from the rocky hills, from where the dead body of the
deceased was recovered, the chappal of the deceased was also
recovered by the Investigating Officer on 22.02.2014, of which the
recovery memo is Ex. A-12 was prepared. The Investigating Officer
also took into custody the plain and blood stained soil from the
place of incident where the dead body was found, and prepared its
recovery memo, which is Ex. A-13. Another site plan of the rock,
where the dead body was found, was also prepared by the
Investigating Officer, which is Ex. A-14. The articles were sent for
forensic examination. The forensic examination reports are Ex. A-
19 and Ex. A-20, according to which, the blood stained and plain
soil were from the same place, but the blood was not detected
4
either on the chair or on the blood stained stones, which were
sent for forensic examination.
5. After investigation, chargesheet was submitted
against the appellants under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. Initially,
charges were framed against the appellants on 22.07.2014 under
Sections 302 and 201 IPC, but, subsequently, on 18.02.2015, the
amended charges were framed under Section 302 read with
Sections 34 and 201 IPC against the appellants, to which they
denied and claimed trial.
6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution
examined as many as seven witnesses, namely, PW1, Neema
Gariya, PW2, Khasti Devi, the informant, PW3, Ramesh Chander
Singh, PW4, S.I. Mohan Chander Joshi, PW5, Dr. N.S. Toliya,
PW6, Constable Tara Datt Kapri and PW7, S.I. Satya Prakash.
7. The appellants were examined under Sections 313
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”). According to
them, they have been falsely implicated. They did not commit any
offence.
8. In their defence, the appellants did not adduce any
evidence.
9. After hearing the parties, by the impugned
judgment and order, the appellants have been convicted under
Section 302 read with 34 IPC and sentenced as stated
hereinbefore.
10. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
appellants submits that it is a no evidence case; the FIR is delayed
by about 9 days; there is no explanation to it; the persons, who
are named as the witnesses, in whose presence, according to the
5
FIR, the deceased was beaten up by the relatives of Mohan Singh,
have not been examined at the trial; the statement of PW1, Neema
Gariya, who is produced as an eye-witness of marpeet with the
deceased by the appellants is not reliable, as she is not named in
the FIR; the inquest was prepared on 13.02.2014, and it was
witnessed by many persons, including Gopal Singh, who is the
scribe of the FIR. At that time, no doubt was raised that the
appellants, or any of them, had committed marpeet with the
deceased. It is argued that at the most, if the statement of PW1,
Neema Gariya, is believed, even it does not suggest as to how the
dead body of the deceased was found below the rocks? Who took
the dead body at that place? Because, the statement of PW1,
Neema Gariya, is to the extent of marpeet simpliciter, which, by no
stretch of imagination, could take the case under Section 302 IPC.
11. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
appellants also submits that according to PW1, Neema Gariya,
with the burnt and split wood, the deceased was hit by the
appellants, but there was no burn injury on the deceased, as
stated by PW5, Dr. N.S. Toliya. It is argued that, in fact, according
to PW2, Khasti Devi, the informant, was told by Ravi Gariya, the
tent house owner, that on the date of incident, the deceased had
left the wedding venue at about 8:00 p.m. It is argued that it
belies the prosecution case, and the appellants deserve to be
acquitted of the charge framed against them, but the court below
has committed an error in convicting and sentencing the
appellants.
12. Learned State Counsel submits that PW1, Neema
Gariya, is the relative of the appellants; she is a villager and a
natural witness; she has stated about the incident that it is the
6
appellants, who hit the deceased and beaten him up in the
marriage, as the deceased had molested their sister.
13. Learned State Counsel also submits that the FIR
was given by the PW2, Khasti Devi, the informant, on 17.02.2014,
but it was lodged on 20.02.2014.
14. The Court wanted to know from learned State
Counsel as to whether there is any record to that extent that PW2,
Khasti Devi, had given the report to the police station on
17.02.2014? He submits that in the FIR, the date is 17.02.2014,
and in her statement also, PW2, Khasti Devi, has stated so.
15. Before arguments are appreciated, it would be apt
to examine as to what the witnesses have stated.
16. PW1, Neema Gariya, is the relative of the
appellants as well as Mohan Singh, whose daughter was to marry
on 11.02.2014. According to her, the marriage was a day
marriage, and the baraat had returned at 7:30 p.m.; she was
cooking her meals. There was enough light when her aunt,
Bhawani Devi had visited her. Suddenly, the appellant Bishan Lal
Sah hit the deceased with a burnt split wood. She took the
appellant Bishan Lal Sah inside the house, where the appellant
Bishan Lal Sah told them that the deceased had molested their
sister, and all the appellants, thereafter, attacked the deceased
with charred and split wood. In that process, one Dhan Singh also
hit the deceased on his leg, due to which the deceased fell down.
He was not in a position of walking. He was calling his wife by her
name, who was not present there. According to PW1, Neema
Gariya, thereafter, she locked the appellant Bishan Lal Sah in a
room. Insofar as the incident is concerned, she is the sole witness.
7
17. PW2, Khasti Devi, is the informant, who is the wife
of the deceased. According to her, on 11.02.2014, the deceased
had gone to attend a marriage. He did not return. She enquired
about it. Subsequently, the dead body of the deceased was found.
She informed the police as to what had happened. Subsequently,
she lodged the FIR. She has also stated that she is afraid of the
appellants, as they had extended threats to her.
18. PW3, Ramesh Chander Singh, is the witness of
inquest. He has stated that he signed the inquest documents.
19. PW4, S.I. Mohan Chandra Joshi, had conducted
the inquest of the deceased, which was done on 13.02.2014. He
has proved the inquest report, Ex. A-2, and other documents
leading to the post mortem of the dead body. In his cross
examination, he tells that it was informed to the police that a
person has died by falling on the rocks while walking on the
pathway.
20. PW5, Dr. N.S. Toliya, has conducted the post
mortem of the deceased. The injuries detected by him have
already been noted hereinbefore. He has proved the post mortem
report as Ex. A-7. According to him, the cause of death was
haemorrhage due to ante mortem head injuries due to RTA.
21. PW6, Constable Tara Datt Kapri, has recorded
chik FIR and made its entry in the General Diary of the Police
Station Kapkot. He has proved those documents.
22. PW7, S.I. Satya Prakash, is the Investigating
Officer. He had taken into custody the chair, which had blood
stains, and prepared its recovery memo, Ex. A-10. He also
prepared the site plan, Ex. A-11, where allegedly the marpeet took
place. He had also taken into custody the chappal of the deceased
8
from near the place where the dead body was recovered, and
prepared its recovery memo, which is Ex. A-12. He also had taken
the blood stained soil and plain soil and prepared its recovery
memo, which is Ex. A-13. This witness arrested the appellants
and also sent the articles for forensic examination. He has proved
those articles as well. After conducting investigation, the charge
sheet was submitted by PW 7 SI Satya Prakash.
23. The FIR, in fact, is delayed in the instant case. The
dead body was recovered on 12.02.2014, and on 13.02.2014, the
inquest was also prepared. At that time also, nobody had told that
the deceased was beaten up in the wedding and that it is the
appellants, who killed him. Even no suspicion was raised.
24. PW2, Khasti Devi, is the informant. In the FIR, she
records that some named persons, namely, Basanti Devi,
daughter of Hayat Singh, Dhan Singh, son of Aan Singh, Nandi
Devi, daughter of Veer Singh, Ravi Gariya, son of Kushal Singh,
Pradeep Singh and Kushal Singh, etc. told her that the relatives of
Mohan Singh had beaten up the deceased in the wedding. But the
named witnesses or any of them have not been examined by the
prosecution. Instead, PW1, Neema Gariya, has been examined.
She is not named in the FIR as the person, who had witnessed the
incident of beating the deceased by the relatives of Mohan Singh,
whose daughter was to marry on that date. PW2, Khasti Devi, has
stated that she received the information of marpeet on
17.02.2014, and, thereafter, she lodged the FIR.
25. The question is – if PW1, Neema Gariya, or named
persons had seen the marpeet with the deceased on 11.02.2014,
at the wedding, why was it not immediately informed to PW2,
Khasti Devi, or to the police? Why was it so delayed? As such, no
9
satisfactory explanation has been offered by the prosecution with
regard to the delay in lodging of the FIR. It somehow creates doubt
in the prosecution story.
26. As stated, the sole witness of marpeet with the
deceased on 11.02.2014 in the house of Mohan Singh is PW1,
Neema Gariya. According to her, the appellants were under the
impression that the deceased had inappropriately touched their
sister. Therefore, he was beaten up. He was beaten up with a
charred and split wood. But, the dead body was not found in the
wedding venue. It was found in the rocky valley in the forest at a
distance from the wedding venue. Who took the deceased from the
wedding venue to the place where the dead body was found?
There is no evidence forthcoming. Had the appellants taken the
deceased from the wedding venue and threw him away? There is
no case suggested by the prosecution. The statement of PW1,
Neema Gariya, requires a little deeper scrutiny. She was
confronted with her statement recorded under Section 161 of the
Code. In page 4, 4th paragraph of her statement, she tells to the
court that she had not told it to the Investigating Officer that she
had locked all the appellants and Dhan Singh inside the room. In
the next paragraph, she has also stated that she did not tell it to
the Investigating Officer that after half an hour, she saw that the
deceased was not in the courtyard, and then she opened the door,
but, PW7, S.I. Satya Prakash, in page 6 of his statement, in the
top paragraph, stated that PW1, Neema Gariya, had told it to him
that she had locked Dhan Singh and all the appellants in a room,
and after half an hour, when she saw that the deceased was not
there, she opened the door. It further doubts the prosecution case.
If the appellants and Dhan Singh were locked in the room after
10
marpeet, as alleged by PW1, Neema Gariya, and after half an
hour, PW1, Neema Gariya, had noticed that the deceased was not
there in the courtyard and thereafter she opened the door, then
how could the prosecution connect the appellants with the killing
of the deceased? This has not even been suggested by the
prosecution.
27. PW2, Khasti Devi, has further stated that, in fact,
she had questioned Ravi Gariya as to where the deceased is? At
it, Ravi Gariya had replied that the deceased had returned from
Jalekh after marriage. It also doubts the prosecution case, insofar
as the killing of the deceased by the appellants is concerned.
28. The only evidence, which has been suggested by
the prosecution is that on 11.02.2014, in the evening, the
appellants did some marpeet with the deceased. The statement of
PW1, Neema Gariya, about bearing by the appellants is also not
corroborated by any other evidence. In fact, she had contradiction
in her statement given during investigation and during trial, as
noted hereinbefore. The alleged beating by the appellants is not
connected with the killing of the deceased. The prosecution has
even not suggested as to how the deceased reached from the
wedding venue to the place where he was found dead. At the cost
of repetition, it may be stated that as per PW2, Khasti Devi, she
was told by Ravi Garia that the deceased had left the wedding
venue on his own at 8:00 p.m.
29. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of
the view that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case
beyond reasonable doubt. The court below has committed an error
in convicting and sentencing the appellants under Section 302
read with 34 IPC. Accordingly, the appellants deserve to be
11
acquitted of the charge levelled against them and the appeal
deserves to be allowed.
30. The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment
and order dated 18.03.2015/21.03.2015 passed in Sessions Trial
No. 07 of 2014, State v. Gopal Lal Sah and others is set aside. The
appellants are acquitted of the charge levelled against them.
31. The appellants are on bail. The appellants need
not surrender. Their bail bonds are cancelled and the sureties are
discharged of their liabilities.
32. The appellants shall furnish a personal bond and
two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, by each one of
them, to the satisfaction of the court concerned under Section 437
A of the Code within a period of one month from today.
33. Let a copy of this judgment and order along with
the lower court record by forwarded to the court concerned.
(Siddhartha Sah, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.)
03.08.2026
Ravi Bisht
