Uttarakhand High Court
Naveen Singh Khadayat vs State Of Uttarakhand on 25 May, 2026
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
2026:UHC:4135-DB
Reserved on: 13.05.2026
Delivered on: 25.05.2026
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Appeal No.437 of 2025
Naveen Singh Khadayat ........Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ......Respondent
Present:-
Mr. Amit Kapri along with Ms. Layba Noor, learned counsel for
the appellant.
Mr. J. S. Virk, learned D.A.G. for the State.
Coram:Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Hon’ble Siddhartha Sah, J.
(Per: Hon’ble Siddhartha Sah, J.)
The present Criminal Appeal has been preferred on behalf
of the appellant against the impugned judgment and order dated
26.05.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh in
Sessions Trial No.08 of 2022 under Sections 307, 326 of IPC (Case
Crime No.48 of 2021 P.S. Jajardeval, District Pithoragarh) and
Sessions Trial No.09 of 2022 under Sections 4/25 of Arms Act (Case
Crime No.49 of 2021 P.S. Jajardeval, District Pithoragarh), ‘State of
Uttarakhand vs. Naveen Singh Khadayat’, whereby the appellant has
been sentenced as under:-
Sl. Conviction Sentence Fine Sentence in lieu of fine
No.
1. 307 IPC 10 years R.I. `50,000/- Additional Two Years R.I.
2. 326 IPC 10 years R.I. `50,000/- Additional Two Years R.I.
3. 4/25 (1- 03 years `10,000/- Additional Six Months
B)(b) Arms imprisonment imprisonment
ActAforesaid sentences were directed to run consecutively.
2
2. The relevant facts of the case as stated in this appeal are
as follows:
(i) FIR was lodged at P.S. Jajardeval, District Pithoragarh on
15.10.2021 by informant Chandra Mohan Singh.
According to it, the appellant, who is neighbour of the
informant, had old enmity with Lalit Singh, the brother of
the informant. On 14.10.2021 at 08:45 p.m., when his
brother Lalit Singh S/o Shri Umed Singh was returning
home from Chaupakhia Mela, below the house near the
cowshed, the appellant had some altercation with him, on
which the appellant attacked Lalit Singh with a sharp
edged weapon, with an intention to kill him. Due to it, the
right hand of Lalit Singh got cut. He also sustained injury
on the head. His brother was taken to the hospital, who
was subsequently referred to Haldwani. The report was
entered in the Thana vide G.D. entry No.03 on 15.10.2021.
The said report was registered as FIR/Case Crime No.48 of
2021 under Sections 307/326 IPC and investigation
ensued. Recovery of the said Khukri led to registration of
FIR under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act, 1959 against the
accused/appellant as FIR/Case Crime No.49/2021 at P.S.
Jajardeval.
(ii) When the injured Lalit Singh was initially brought to B.D.
Pandey Hospital, Pithoragarh, the Bed Head Ticket records
the following injuries on him- (i) Right forearm sharped cut
wound and is intact by skin, (ii) Right side forehead
lacerated wound just above Right eyebrow, (iii) Lacerated
wound over nose size 2.5 cm X 1.4 cm, (iv) Left side
3
parietal lacerated wound present size 2.7 cm X 1.5 cm and
(v) lacerated wound over the head size 6cm x 0.7cm.
Though initially the injured was taken to B.D. Pandey
Hospital, Pithoragarh but records bear that initially he was
referred to Haldwani & then he was admitted in emergency
on 15.10.2021 at 8:15 pm at Shri Ram Murti Smarak
Institute of Medical Sciences, Bareilly and was discharged
on 01.11.2021. Two operations were done whereby there
was amputation of right hand below elbow.
(iii) A disclosure statement of the appellant was recorded on
15.10.2021 in which he confessed of having attacked the
injured with Khukri since he entertained doubt that the
injured had an evil eye on his wife. On being interrogated,
he disclosed that the Khukri, by which he had attacked
Lalit Singh, has been concealed by him in the grass in
cowshed behind his home. The said Khukri was recovered
from the grass of the cowshed at the instance of appellant
on 15.10.2021, which was taken into possession and
recovery memo of Khukri was prepared, and the appellant
was arrested. The arrest memo and the information memo
were duly prepared.
(iv) It needs to be further mentioned that a blood spotted T-
Shirt, which was worn by the appellant at the time of
incident was taken into possession and the possession
memo dated 15.10.2021 was prepared.
(v) The site plan of the place of occurrence was also prepared
as also the site plan of recovery of Khukri and the sample
seal of the case materials was also prepared.
4
(vi) On 27.10.2021, the blood stained T-Shirt and blood stains
were permitted to be sent for FSL examination vide order of
CJM, Pithoragarh and the said materials were received by
FSL, Dehradun on 29.10.2021. On completion of
investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted on
03.01.2022 against the appellant under Sections 307/326
IPC. Charge-sheet dated 12.11.2021 was submitted under
Section 4/25 of the Arms Act. In Sessions Trial No.08 of
2022, charges under Sections 307/326 of IPC were framed
on 24.05.2022, which were denied by the appellant and he
claimed trial. In Sessions Trial No.09 of 2022, charge
under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act was framed on
24.05.2022, which was denied by the appellant & he
claimed trial. Since both the cases pertained to the same
incident, vide order dated 05.11.2022, Sessions Trial No.08
of 2022 State vs. Naveen Singh Kharayat & Sessions Trial
No.09 of 2022 State vs. Naveen Singh Kharayat ,were
consolidated & Sessions Trial No.08 of 2022 State vs.
Naveen Singh Kharayat was to be the leading case file.
Thereafter, trial commenced & statements of witnesses
were recorded.
(vii) The victim Lalit Singh was examined as PW1 and in his
statements, he stated in detail about the incident of
14.10.2021 when at about 8:45 p.m. the appellant entered
his old home/cowshed and telling him why he is standing
in his place, he will kill him today, the appellant hit his
head with Khukri and also with the intention to kill him,
attacked his neck, which he stopped with his hand when
5
his hand got cut and hung, then the appellant also
attacked with Khukri on the face and nose and caused
injury above eyebrow. From the attack, he got drenched in
blood and the appellant also hit him by Khukari behind his
neck and back. He shouted and fell down, then after some
time his wife and his younger brother came and he was
taken to hospital through 108 Ambulance. Seeing his
serious condition, the family members took him to
Haldwani and after being kept in Haldwani for 12 hours,
he was referred to Shri Ram Murti Smarak Institute of
Medical Sciences, Bareilly, where Dr. Afsar Khan treated
him and suggested that whole hand has to be cut, as in
the effort of joining, infection can spread. The respondent
counsel cross-examined the injured PW1 but nothing
material came to light.
(viii) PW2 Chandra Mohan Singh is the brother of injured, who
came to the spot where injured had received injury. He
stated that Bhabhi had taken the injured to hospital and
he lodged report in Thana and verified his signatures
thereon which was marked as Exhibit P-1.
(ix) PW3 S.I. Manoj Pandey deposed that in the interrogation
after arresting the appellant disclosed that the Khukri by
which the appellant assaulted the injured has been
concealed by him in his cowshed which was recovered at
the instance of the accused and a recovery memo was
prepared bearing his signatures, which he proved and was
marked as Exhibit P-2. The Khukri was sealed at the spot
and sample seal was prepared which bears his signatures
6
and which he proved and was marked as Exhibit P-3. The
appellant was arrested and the arrest memo was prepared,
which bears his signatures and which he proved and was
marked as Exhibit P-4. The check list and arrest
information memo were also proved by him and were
marked as Exhibit P-5 and P-6 respectively. In the Court,
a sealed bundle was opened from which a Khukri came out
bearing chit of FSL. The Khukri was marked as material
Exhibit MO-1 and the sealing cloth was marked as
material Exhibit MO-2.
(x) PW4 A.S.I. P.R. Arya deposed that the FIR under Sections
4/25 of the Arms Act bearing FIR No. 49 of 2021 was
lodged by him and proved the same, which was marked as
Exhibit P-7.
(xi) PW5 Smt. Nirmala Devi wife of the injured deposed that
when she and her brother-in-law went to cowshed, she saw
her husband badly bleeding and his hand was cut; there
were injuries on his head, face, back and the injured told
her that the appellant had assaulted him with Khukri. 108
ambulance was called and injured was brought to District
Hospital, Pithoragarh and thereafter, he was referred to
higher centre from Pithoragarh. His condition was serious
so he was referred to Shri Ram Murti Smarak Institute of
Medical Sciences, Bareilly where doctors told that infection
was spreading to hand, the hand was amputated to save
his life.
(xii) PW6 Manoj Kumar is a resident of the same village Malli,
Riyansi and had reached Lalit Singh’s cowshed on hearing
7
the cries, he saw Lalit Singh covered in blood. He informed
the Up Pradhan then Chowki Vadda and then called 108.
However, he was declared hostile.
(xiii) PW7 Rakesh Singh deposed that he was posted as
Constable Clerk, Thana Jajardeval on 14.10.2021 and had
lodged Case Crime No.48 of 2021, under Sections 307/326
IPC in CCTNS online chik, which bears his signature and
proved the same, which was marked as Exhibit P-8. He
also proved G.D. Report No.3 on which he proved his
signatures and the same was marked as Exhibit P-9.
(xiv) PW8 Doctor Lal Singh Bora deposed that on 14.10.2021 he
was posted as Main Surgeon in District Hospital,
Pithoragarh where he gave surgical treatment to Lalit
Singh Khadayat. He stated about injuries received by
injured from sharp edged weapon. At 11:50 on 14.10.2021,
the patient was referred to higher centre. If the patient was
not brought to hospital on time he could have died from
excessive bleeding. The witness PW8 proved his signatures
on Bed Head Ticket Report which was marked as Exhibit
P-10. The witness also proved Refer Slip bearing his
signatures which was marked as Exhibit P-11.
(xv) PW9 Doctor Afsar Khan recorded his evidence by video
conferencing posted in Shri Ram Murti Smarak Institute of
Medical Sciences, Bareilly and deposed that the injured
Lalit Singh was admitted in the hospital on 15.10.2021 at
8:15 and remained there till 01.11.2021; when he was
admitted in hospital his right hand was cut below the
elbow which was attached with body part of skin and since
8
the hand could not be saved it was amputated by an
operation. The witness proved the supplementary report
bearing his signatures which was marked as Exhibit P-12.
(xvi) PW10 Constable Suresh Singh deposed that he was
appointed as special messenger and he had proceeded with
the sealed material and forwarding letter to FSL, Dehradun
on 28.10.2021; he had submitted the sealed bundles in
FSL, Dehradun on 29.10.2021 and obtained receipt which
he had submitted in the Thana. On 09.12.2021, he had
carried the sealed material of FTA card to FSL and
submitted them on 10.12.2021 and obtained receipt which
he submitted in the Thana.
(xvii) PW11 Jasvir Singh was at the relevant time posted as
Chowki In-charge Vadda, Thana Jajardeval & had received
the investigation of Case Crime No.48 of 2021 and at the
instance of the informant prepared site plan which bears
his signatures which he proved as Exhibit P-13. He also
proved arrest memo which was marked as Exhibit P-14;
arrest information memo which was marked as Exhibit P-
15; check list which was marked as Exhibit P-16; recovery
memo of T-shirt which was marked as Exhibit P-17;
sample seal of sealing of T-shirt which was marked as
Exhibit P-18; disclosure statement of accused which was
marked as Exhibit P-19; application for medical report
which was marked as Exhibit P-20; forwarding letter
containing receipt of FSL which was marked as Exhibit P-
21; another forwarding letter containing receipt of FSL
which was marked as Exhibit P-22; site plan which was
9
marked as Exhibit P-23; charge-sheet which was marked
as Exhibit P-24; charge-sheet registered online through
CCTNS which was marked as Exhibit P-25 and FSL report
which was marked as Exhibit P-26.
(xviii) PW12 S.I. Meenakshi Manral stated that she received the
investigation of Case Crime No. 49 of 2021, under Section
4/25 of the Arms Act. She proved the site plan which was
marked as P-27. Upon investigation, she prepared charge-
sheet and she proved the charge-sheet which was marked
as Exhibit P-28. The charge-sheet was also lodged in
CCTNS which was proved by her and marked as Exhibit P-
29.
(xix) PW 13 Dr. Dhawal Waghela deposed that on 08.12.2021 he
was posted as Pathologist in B.D. Pandey District Hospital,
Pithoragarh and he had taken blood samples of the
appellant and the injured which collection were taken on
FTA cards and placed with form in an envelope and sealed
and sent to court.
Thereafter, statements of the appellant were
recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, wherein he denied all the allegations and
materials put to him and feigned ignorance about the
evidence against him and stated that he is innocent and he
has been falsely implicated.
(xx) Thereafter, the learned Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh heard
the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and vide
judgment and order dated 26.05.2025 convicted the
accused/appellant under Sections 307/326 IPC and under
10
Section 4/25 (1-B)(b) of the Arms Act and sentenced him
accordingly.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the
prosecution case is false; the appellant is innocent and he has been
falsely implicated.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that
there are major inconsistencies in the statements of PW-1 when the
same is compared with the depositions made by the other witnesses.
5. Trying to impeach the testimony of PW-1, learned counsel
for the appellant would submit that though PW-1 has stated that his
brother and wife were the first persons who came after the incident, in
cross-examination of PW-1 itself, it has come that the first person to
arrive after the incident was one Bhawna. Learned counsel for the
appellant also referred to the cross-examination of PW-6 & submitted
that there are major inconsistencies in the prosecution case.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant would also try to
impeach the testimony of PW-2 on the premise that after the incident,
the PW-2 went to sleep at home, though he is the one who lodged the
FIR at the police station. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the
appellant, there is contradiction regarding the timing of the registration
of the FIR.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant would further submit
that Bhawna would have been main witness, but she has not been
examined.
11
8. Learned counsel for the appellant also assailed the manner
and mode in which the Khukri was recovered at the instance of the
appellant.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that
during the incident the appellant had also sustained a minor injury on
his finger; however, in the FSL report the Khukri does not contain the
blood of the appellant and, therefore, according to the learned counsel
for the appellant, there are inconsistencies in the prosecution case.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for the State would submit
that the present case is one where the injured witness has narrated the
incident in detail and, in fact, it is a case where the injuries inflicted by
the accused-appellant led to the amputation of the arm of the injured
below the elbow. The contradictions, as tried to be pointed out by the
learned counsel for the appellant, are insignificant in the light of the
clear statement of the injured, medical evidence and the DNA report
regarding the blood of the injured having been found on the Khukri.
11. The bed-head ticket/report of District Hospital,
Pithoragarh clearly states about the grievous nature of the injuries
inflicted upon the injured Lalit Singh.
12. In the case of “Balu Sudam Khalde and Another vs. State
of Maharashtra“, (2023) 13 SCC 365, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
laid down the principles for appreciating evidence of an injured
witness. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-
“26. When the evidence of an injured eyewitness is to be
appreciated, the undernoted legal principles enunciated by the
courts are required to be kept in mind:
12
26.1. The presence of an injured eyewitness at the time and place
of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material
contradictions in his deposition.
26.2. Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must
be believed that an injured witness would not allow the real
culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused.26.3. The evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary
value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are
not to be discarded lightly.
26.4. The evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted on
account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor
contradictions.
26.5. If there be any exaggeration or immaterial embellishments
in the evidence of an injured witness, then such contradiction,
exaggeration or embellishment should be discarded from the
evidence of injured, but not the whole evidence.26.6. The broad substratum of the prosecution version must be
taken into consideration and discrepancies which normally creep
due to loss of memory with passage of time should be discarded.”
13. Reference is also made to the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of “Abdul Sayeed vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh“, (2010) 10 SCC 259, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
paragraph nos.28, 29 and 30 has held as under:-
“28. The question of the weight to be attached to the evidence of
a witness that was himself injured in the course of the occurrence
has been extensively discussed by this Court. Where a witness to
the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the
testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very
reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a built-in guarantee of
his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his
actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone.
“Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness.”
[Vide Ramlagan Singh v. State of Bihar [(1973) 3 SCC 881 : 1973
13
SCC (Cri) 563 : AIR 1972 SC 2593] , Malkhan Singh v. State of
U.P. [(1975) 3 SCC 311 : 1974 SCC (Cri) 919 : AIR 1975 SC 12]
, Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab [(1983) 3 SCC 470 : 1983 SCC
(Cri) 681] , Appabhai v. State of Gujarat [1988 Supp SCC 241 :
1988 SCC (Cri) 559 : AIR 1988 SC 696] , Bonkya v. State of
Maharashtra [(1995) 6 SCC 447 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 1113] , Bhag
Singh [(1997) 7 SCC 712 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1163] , Mohar v. State
of U.P. [(2002) 7 SCC 606 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 121] (SCC p. 606b-
c), Dinesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan [(2008) 8 SCC 270 : (2008)
3 SCC (Cri) 472] , Vishnu v. State of Rajasthan [(2009) 10 SCC
477 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 302] , Annareddy Sambasiva
Reddy v. State of A.P. [(2009) 12 SCC 546 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri)
630] and Balraje v. State of Maharashtra [(2010) 6 SCC 673 :
(2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 211] .]
29. While deciding this issue, a similar view was taken in Jarnail
Singh v. State of Punjab [(2009) 9 SCC 719 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri)
107] , where this Court reiterated the special evidentiary status
accorded to the testimony of an injured accused and relying on its
earlier judgments held as under : (SCC pp. 726-27, paras 28-29)
“28. Darshan Singh (PW 4) was an injured witness. He had
been examined by the doctor. His testimony could not be
brushed aside lightly. He had given full details of the
incident as he was present at the time when the assailants
reached the tubewell. In Shivalingappa
Kallayanappa v. State of Karnataka [1994 Supp (3) SCC 235
: 1994 SCC (Cri) 1694] this Court has held that the
deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon
unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence
on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies, for
the reason that his presence on the scene stands
14established in case it is proved that he suffered the injury
during the said incident.
29. In State of U.P. v. Kishan Chand [(2004) 7 SCC 629 :
2004 SCC (Cri) 2013] a similar view has been reiterated
observing that the testimony of a stamped witness has its
own relevance and efficacy. The fact that the witness
sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence, lends
support to his testimony that he was present during the
occurrence. In case the injured witness is subjected to
lengthy cross-examination and nothing can be elicited to
discard his testimony, it should be relied upon
(vide Krishan v. State of Haryana [(2006) 12 SCC 459 :
(2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 214] ). Thus, we are of the considered
opinion that evidence of Darshan Singh (PW 4) has rightly
been relied upon by the courts below.”
30. The law on the point can be summarised to the effect that the
testimony of the injured witness is accorded a special status in
law. This is as a consequence of the fact that the injury to the
witness is an inbuilt guarantee of his presence at the scene of the
crime and because the witness will not want to let his actual
assailant go unpunished merely to falsely implicate a third party
for the commission of the offence. Thus, the deposition of the
injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong
grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major
contradictions and discrepancies therein.”
14. After considering the entire evidence on record and in
particular the testimony of PW-1, who is himself the injured witness,
there is clear and categorical evidence about the manner in which the
15
appellant-accused assaulted the injured and the injuries sustained by
him.
15. It will also be apposite to mention that the doctor, PW-8,
who initially provided the surgical treatment to the injured, has clearly
deposed in his statement that the injuries could have been fatal for
him, if he was not brought to hospital on time. He has also proved the
BHT Report and referral of the injured to higher centre.
16. The doctor of Shri Ram Murti Smarak Institute of Medical
Sciences, Bareilly has clearly stated that amputation of the right hand
had to be resorted to in order to contain the spread of infection in the
hand.
17. It is true that according to PW 2 Chandra Mohan Singh
and PW 5 Smt. Nirmala Devi, they were informed by one Bhawna
Khadayat about the injuries on PW 1 Lalit Singh. It is argued that
Bhawna Khadayat would have been the best witness, who has not been
examined. This argument has less force for acceptance. In the instant
case, PW 1 Lalit Singh is injured himself. He has stated as to how he
was attacked by the appellant. His testimony is supported by the
medical evidence. PW 2 Chandra Mohan Sati and PW 5 Smt. Nirmala
Devi, both reached immediately at the spot, when still PW 1 Lalit Singh
was lying in injured condition. Therefore, non-examination of Bhawna
Khadayat makes no difference. Even otherwise, it is settled law that it
is quality of evidence which matters and not the quantity.
18. PW 3 S.I. Manoj Pandey has categorically stated that on
15.10.2021, on interrogation, the appellant revealed that the Khukhri,
by which he attacked the injured had been concealed by him in a
16
cowshed, which he subsequently got recovered. The forensic science
report connects the Khukhri with the offence.
19. In such view of the matter, there is clear evidence on
record which proves beyond a shadow of doubt the charges against the
appellant. However, one fact remains that it is apparent from the
record that there was enmity between the appellant and the injured
with regard to the cow shed, as both of them claimed the same to be
their property, which, from the narration of the events, appears to have
led to a fight and the appellant appears to have, in a rage, resorted to
such a grave crime. The appellant, by now, has been in incarceration
for more than four years, therefore, there can be some consideration
regarding quantum of sentence. Hence, although the impugned
judgment and order is upheld, since there is no infirmity in the
impugned judgment and order, however, in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case, the sentence awarded under Sections 307
and 326 of the IPC is reduced from 10 years to seven years. The rest of
the judgment does not require any alteration.
20. The learned counsel had also made a submission that the
normal rule is that sentences would run concurrently, however, in the
present case there was no rhyme or reason to order the sentences to
run consecutively. In such view of the matter, it would serve the
purpose if the sentences are modified to run concurrently.
21. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The sentence
awarded under Sections 307 and 326 IPC is reduced from 10 years
rigorous imprisonment to 07 years rigorous imprisonment each and
the sentences to run concurrently. However, the conviction is upheld.
17
22. Let a copy of this judgment along with the original records
be sent to the trial court concerned forthwith. The appellant to serve
out the remaining sentence.
(Siddhartha Sah, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.)
25.05.2026 25.05.2026
Akash
AKASH
Digitally signed by AKASH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=dae2472c001d56469ea76fc0caa68f48ef73518c14
8d140566ab1e26f9cbe61d, postalCode=263001,
st=Uttarakhand,
serialNumber=27096a1625377537a487dee49224c891823f
c6a0334628b21e516047ed4f22f7, cn=AKASH
Date: 2026.05.26 10:14:59 +05’30’
