Uttarakhand High Court
Neeraj Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand on 29 April, 2026
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
2026:UHC:3269-DB
Reserved on: 21.04.2026
Delivered on: 29.04.2026
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Jail Appeal No.124 of 2023
Neeraj Singh ........Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ......Respondent
Present:-
Mr. D. C. S. Rawat, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant.
Mr. Pankaj Joshi, learned A.G.A. for the State.
Coram:Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Hon’ble Siddhartha Sah, J.
(Per: Hon’ble Siddhartha Sah, J.)
The present Criminal Jail Appeal has been preferred on
behalf of the accused/appellant against the judgment and order dated
09.08.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh in
Sessions Trial No.06 of 2021, State of Uttarakhand vs. Neeraj Singh
(arising out of Case Crime No.01 of 2020, under Sections 302, 457,
380, 411 of IPC and Section 5/27(1) of the Arms Act, Police Station
Patti Aamthal, District Pithoragarh), whereby the accused/appellant
has been sentenced as under:-
Sl. Conviction Sentence Fine Sentence in lieu of fine
No.
1. 302 IPC Life `50,000/- Additional Five Years R.I.
imprisonment.
2. 457 IPC 14 years R.I. `10,000/- Additional Three Years R.I.
3. 380 IPC 07 years R.I. `10,000/- Additional One Year R.I.
4. 411 IPC 03 years R.I. `5,000/- Additional Six Months R.I.
5. 5 r/w 27(1) 07 years `5,000/- Additional One Year
of the Arms imprisonment imprisonment
ActAforesaid sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2
2. The present case started on the basis of FIR that was
lodged before the Patti Patwari Thal, Tehsil Thal, District Pithoragarh,
by the informant, Ganga Singh S/o Late Karam Singh, R/o Village
Machhikhet, (Tok Banri), Patti Thal, Tehsil Thal, District Pithoragarh
with the allegations that on 19.09.2020 at about 9:30 p.m., the
informant was watching news on the Television in his room, at that
time, he heard the sound of a bullet. On hearing the sound and on the
shouting of daughter-in-law, Smt. Saraswati Devi, he came out, by
which time, his nephew, Pushkar Singh S/o Late Jagat Singh, was
seen fallen on the ground with a grievous firearm injury on his back,
from which blood was profusely oozing out. On hearing the voices of
crying, the nearby villagers came running to the place of incident. It
was doubted that the bullet might have been fired from the roof top. At
that time, we 2 – 3 persons went to the terrace but did not see anybody
there. There was brightness in the courtyard (Angan), due to which
they did not see anybody running. At that time, the informant went
with the emergency light to the adjacent Goth (cattle room) then saw
the appellant Neeraj Singh S/o Bhopal Singh of this Village sitting with
gun in his hand. The informant came running out to save his life and
at that time, the appellant ran away from the Goth (cattle room) with
the gun. Therefore, it was requested that proper action be taken. On
the basis of the report dated 20.09.2020, Chik FIR was registered at
Rajaswa Up-Nirikshak (Revenue Sub-Inspector) Thal/Aamthal, District
Pithoragarh as Case Crime No.1 of 2020 under Section 302 IPC and
Section 25 of the Arms Act against the accused/appellant.
3. Another report dated 19.09.2020 was lodged with Patti
Patwari Thal, Tehsil Thal, District Pithoragarh by one Rajendra Singh
S/o late Jagat Singh R/o Machikhet, Tehsil Thal, District Pithoragarh
with the allegation that he is an arms holder. His gun’s number is
3recorded as DBBL-97677. In the evening of 18.09.2020 when he
returned to his room, he found that his gun, which was kept near his
bed, and the cartridges, kept in a locked almirah, had been taken away
by someone by breaking open the lock. Therefore, it was prayed that a
First Information Report be registered for his missing gun and
cartridges.
4. The inquest report was prepared on 20.09.2020 at about
9:00 a.m. by the Rajaswa Up-Nirikshak (Revenue Sub-Inspector),
Aamthal/Thal, wherein the informant Ganga Singh on inquiry had
reiterated the FIR version to the Patti Patwari. As per the opinion of the
Panch witnesses, the death of the deceased Pushkar Singh was caused
due to the gunshot fired by Neeraj Singh.
5. That it is the case of the prosecution that the
accused/appellant was arrested on 20.09.2020 from a bathroom near
Nagmal Temple, Old Thal, by the Station House Officer, Mr. Hem
Chandra Pant along with a double barrel gun bearing No. 97677 and a
bag containing 19 live cartridges. Memo of arrest and recovery of
double barrel gun and 19 live cartridges was duly prepared.
6. The post-mortem examination on the dead body of the
deceased, Pushkar Singh, was conducted on 21.09.2020 at about
12:30 p.m. at B.D. Pandey District Hospital, Pithoragarh. As per the
post-mortem report, the ante-mortem firearm injury was found in the
form of a lacerated wound measuring 3 cm × 2 cm, 12 cm deep with
inverted skin margin present over medial aspect of the back of the
chest, 2 cm medial to left lower angle of scapula obliquely placed upon.
On internal examination, there is presence of number of pellets, wads,
and blood clots. On internal examination, left atrium was found torn
4
and two pellets were present there. Time of death was about 36 to 48
hours. As per the post-mortem report, the cause of death is due to
shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem firearm injury.
7. During the course of investigation, the Rajaswa Up-
Nirikshak (Revenue Sub-Inspector), Aamthal/Thal collected blood-
stained soil (floor of the Angan) and plain soil (cement of floor) from the
place of incident and prepared recovery memo dated 20.09.2020. The
Rajaswa Up-Nirikshak (Revenue Sub-Inspector), Aamthal/Thal also
prepared a memo of recovery of empty cartridge shell from the place of
incident. The Rajaswa Up-Nirikshak (Revenue Sub-Inspector),
Aamthal/Thal also prepared sample seal of the white cloth, in which
the deceased, Pushkar Singh was wrapped. Sample seal dated
20.09.2020 of the case material – soil stained, floor cement particles,
plain gravel (Bajri) particles, double barrel gun and 19 cartridges, was
prepared.
8. A letter dated 20.09.2020 was addressed to the Chief
Medical Officer, B.D. Pandey District Hospital, Pithoragarh, requesting
for the medical examination of the body of the deceased. The other
necessary form dated 20.09.2020 was forwarded along with the sample
seal of the white cloth for the purpose of conducting the post-mortem
examination. The site plan of the place of incident was prepared by the
Rajaswa Up-Nirikshak (Revenue Sub-Inspector), Aamthal/Thal on
20.09.2020. Another site plan dated 08.12.2020 was also prepared by
Rajaswa Up-Nirikshak (Revenue Sub-Inspector), Aamthal/Thal. Letter
dated 25.11.2020 of Rajaswa Up-Nirikshak (Revenue Sub-Inspector),
Aamthal/Thal, was submitted in the court of learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Pithoragarh, through the Assistant Prosecution Officer for
forwarding the case material for examination by the Forensic Science
5
Laboratory, Dehradun. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pithoragarh, vide
order dated 25.11.2020, endorsed the said letter and directed the
Investigating Officer to proceed with the investigation in accordance
with law. Thereafter, the relevant case materials were forwarded to the
Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Dehradun, vide letter dated
25.11.2020. The Forensic Science Laboratory, Dehradun submitted the
report dated 04.12.2020 opining that crime 12 bore cartridge case
marked C-1 had been fired from the right barrel of the gun marked A-
1. Vide another examination report dated 25.03.2021, the Forensic
Science Laboratory, Dehradun opined that it could not be possible to
conclusively link the recovered pellets and wads under reference with
DBBL gun and marked as A-1. Though the pellets and wads are
integral parts of any 12-bore cartridge. But the Forensic Science
Laboratory, Dehradun, in its report dated 09.04.2021, opined that
pieces of cemented floor in parcel marked as ‘Q-1’ and pieces of
cemented floor in parcel marked as ‘S1’ are similar. Another FSL
examination report dated 19.03.2021 concluded that the DNA profiles
obtained from the undershirt, half pant and underwear of the
deceased, Pushkar Singh, as well as from the pellets and wad and FTA
card, collected during post-mortem are from the same human male
source.
9. On the basis of material collected during investigation, the
Rajaswa Up-Nirikshak (Revenue Sub-Inspector), Aamthal/Thal
submitted a charge-sheet against the accused/appellant in the court
under Sections 302, 380, 411, 457 of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms
Act. Charges were framed against the accused/appellant under
Sections 302, 457, 380, 411 of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act on
10.03.2021 by the learned Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh. The
accused/appellant denied the charges and sought trial.
6
10. During the trial, the informant, Ganga Singh was
examined as PW1. He deposed that on the night of 19.09.2020, while
he was hearing news on the television in his room, at that time around
9:30 p.m., he heard the sound of a gunshot. Immediately thereafter,
his daughter-in-law, Smt. Saraswati Devi, was shouting loudly that
Neeraj Singh had shot the bullet. Upon coming out, he found his
nephew, Pushkar Singh, lying on the ground with a firearm injury on
his back, from which blood was profusely oozing. For saving him, he
called the 108 ambulance service and upon hearing the crying and
shouting, many people of the village came on the spot. He asked his
daughter-in-law Smt. Saraswati Devi, regarding the direction in which
the accused/appellant had fled, he along with others searched for
Neeraj Singh. During the search, when they went towards the Goth
(cattle room), then they saw the accused/appellant, Neeraj Singh,
sitting inside the Goth (cattle room) holding a gun in his hand. Upon
noticing them, the accused/appellant allegedly pointed the gun
towards them and fled from the spot.
11. PW-1 further deposed that when the incident involving the
accused/appellant, Neeraj Singh, came to the knowledge of the people
of the village, they started searching for the licensed gun in the village.
During such search, it was found that the licensed double barrel gun
belonging to Rajendra Singh was missing from his house. Rajendra
Singh, aged about 72 years, was present at his home due to illness. It
was alleged that the accused/appellant had stolen the said gun along
with 20 live cartridges. The witness further stated that after the
incident, the accused/appellant was hiding in a Goth (cattle room)
belonging to one Himuli Devi. The witness also deposed that the
accused/appellant present in the court, is a resident of the same
village and community and he used to engage in obscene acts. It was
7
further stated that the deceased, Pushkar Singh, who was Gram
Pradhan at the relevant time, used to scold the accused/appellant,
Neeraj Singh for such obscene acts. About one month prior to the
incident, the accused/appellant had thrown stones at the door of the
kitchen of the deceased, Pushkar Singh and had abused and
threatened the deceased, Pushkar Singh that he will not leave him
alive, he has defamed him before the people.
12. PW1 further deposed that the place of incident is situated
in front of the house of his nephew in Village Machhikhet, (Tok Banri),
Patti Thal, Tehsil Thal, District Pithoragarh. The report of this incident
was given by him to the Patti Patwari Thal, Tehsil Thal, District
Pithoragarh on 20.09.2020 at about 8:00 a.m., which is on record and
bears his signatures, which he identifies and it is marked as Exhibit A-
1. He further stated that in his presence, the Patwari has taken out
blood-stained soil, plain extract of cemented floor and blood-stained
sample from the spot and prepared recovery memo, which bears his
signatures and was duly identified by him. The Patwari found an empty
cartridge shell from the place of incident and its recovery memo was
prepared on the spot, which was signed and identified by him. He
further stated that the Patwari also prepared the inquest report
(Panchayatnama) and appointed him as one of the Panch witnesses,
wherein he is mentioned as Panch No.1 and has identified his
signatures on it. According to the witness, after the Panchnama, the
accused/appellant was hiding in a newly constructed toilet adjacent to
Nagimal Devta Temple, situated one kilometre away from his residence.
13. In his cross-examination, the PW1, Ganga Singh stated
that on 19.09.2020, while he was watching television in his room, his
wife was sleeping due to illness and his daughter-in-law was in another
8
house. He had not seen the incident with his own eyes; the incident
was narrated to him by his daughter-in-law, Smt. Saraswati Devi. He
further stated that he had informed the Patwari that his daughter-in-
law had told him that the accused/appellant, Neeraj Singh, had fired
the bullet; however, if the said statement has not been recorded by
Patwari, he cannot tell the reason for the same. He further stated that
he came out of his room upon hearing the voice of his daughter-in-law
and called the 108 ambulance service after about 10 minutes. The
witness further deposed that several villagers, namely Pooran Singh,
Krishan Singh, Kalawati Devi, Chandra Devi etc., had come in the
courtyard (Aangan). He had given the statement to the Patwari that he
had asked his daughter-in-law about the direction in which the
accused/appellant had fled; however, the same was not recorded in his
statement, for which he could not tell any reason. He denied the
suggestion that he had not seen the accused/appellant sitting in the
Goth (cattle room). He does not know when and who had stolen the
gun of Rajendra Singh. At about 10:30 p.m. on 19.09.2020, Rajendra
Singh had told him that his gun had been stolen by the
accused/appellant, Neeraj Singh. He had given the statement to the
Patwari that the accused/appellant, Neeraj Singh does obscene acts in
the village. The deceased, Pushkar Singh, who was Gram Pradhan at
the relevant time, used to scold the accused/appellant, Neeraj Singh
for the obscene acts. This witness reiterated that the
accused/appellant used to indulge in obscene acts in the village and
that the deceased, being Pradhan, used to scold him. He further stated
that about one month prior to the incident, the accused/appellant had
pelted stones at the house of the deceased, abused and threatened him
that he will not leave him alive; he has defamed him before the people.
9
If these statements were not recorded by the Patwari, he cannot tell the
reason.
14. The witness further stated that he had written the report
at the place of occurrence. On 20.09.2020 at about 3-4 in the morning,
the Patwari had reached his courtyard, he had given the report to him
at that time. He denied the suggestion that the memo of cement and
soil was not prepared in his presence. He denied the suggestion that
empty cartridge was not recovered in his presence by Patwari. He also
stated that the inquest report (Panchayatnama) was prepared between
8:00 to 9:00 a.m. He also denied the suggestion that Patwari had called
him to the Headquarter and obtained all the signatures. He also denied
the suggestion that accused/appellant was called under the pretext of
inquiry from home and arrested. He had given the statement to Patwari
that between the deceased, Pushkar Singh and accused/appellant,
Neeraj Singh in his personal knowledge, there was no type of enmity.
He is the real uncle of Pushkar Singh. He denied the suggestion that
being the uncle, he is giving false evidence against the
accused/appellant.
15. Smt. Saraswati Devi W/o the deceased, Pushkar Singh,
was examined as PW-2. In her deposition, she stated that on
19.09.2020 at about 9:30 p.m., when after meal coming out for
bathroom. The witness identified the accused/appellant in the court
and stated that the accused/appellant present in the court had shot
bullet at the back of her husband. She further stated that upon coming
out, she saw the accused/appellant hiding below the stairs. As soon as
she came out, the accused/appellant fired the bullet. At that time, she
was behind her husband. The accused/appellant ran away from there
after firing at her husband and hid in the Goth (cattle room) of Himuli
10
Devi. Upon being hit by the bullet, her husband fell face down towards
the floor. She told her husband to have courage; she pressed the bullet
wound with her hand; her husband collapsed on the spot; she brought
water and attempted to give him water, but he was in a critical
condition and she started crying loudly. Upon hearing her cries,
maternal uncle-in-law Ganga Singh reached the spot, and thereafter
the ladies of village came to her house and took her above. Maternal
uncle-in-law Ganga Singh called the ambulance thereafter. The entire
process took place in my maternal uncle’s presence; her husband was
village Pradhan and both of our sons were in job, therefore, the
accused/appellant used to be jealous. The deceased used to restrain
the accused/appellant from indulging in objectionable acts, including
misbehaviour with women of the village. Due to this, the
accused/appellant bore enmity towards us. She further stated that
prior to the incident, the accused/appellant had also pelted stones at
their house; her husband had scolded the appellant.
16. She also stated that the accused/appellant had stolen the
gun from the house of Rajendra Singh and used the same to shoot her
husband in front of their house. On the next day, i.e., 20.09.2020, the
Patwari came to the spot, and the report was submitted by Ganga
Singh.
17. PW-2, Smt. Saraswati Devi was cross-examined by the
learned counsel for the accused/appellant. In her cross-examination,
PW-2 stated that she had informed Ganga Singh at about 9:30 p.m. on
19.09.2020 that the accused/appellant had fired at her husband. She
stated that there are 8 stairs in her house and that the
accused/appellant was hiding beneath those stairs.
11
18. She further stated that dinner in the village is usually
taken between 8:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. She confirmed that her husband
had fallen face down after being shot, she immediately took care of
him. She could not specify the exact time taken by Ganga Singh to
reach the spot but stated that he arrived within a five minutes after her
raising alarm. Other villagers gathered within about 10 minutes. She
expressed lack of knowledge regarding the exact time when Ganga
Singh lodged the report. She admitted that neither the Patwari nor the
Kanungo reached the spot during the night of the incident.
19. She also reiterated that the accused/appellant had enmity
with her family for about 1-2 years and used to misbehave with women
of the village, though she admitted that she had no knowledge of any
formal complaint made against him. She further stated that 2-3
months prior to the incident, the accused/appellant had pelted stones
at their house, she does not remember the date. Her husband had not
submitted any report in police Patwari of pelting stones; herself stated
that the deceased scolded the accused/appellant.
20. She denied the suggestion that she had not seen the
accused/appellant firing the shot at her husband or that he had been
falsely implicated. She also denied the suggestion that the
accused/appellant had not pelted stones at their house. She stated
that the accused/appellant was arrested on the next day from near a
temple close to the village by the Patwari and Kanungo. She further
denied the suggestion that the accused/appellant was falsely arrested
under pressure or that he had not been hiding in the nearby Goth
(cattle room).
12
21. PW-2 further deposed that the subsequent proceedings
were carried out as informed by Ganga Singh, and that whatever
things she had narrated to him were incorporated by him in the report
submitted to the Patwari. She denied the suggestion that she was
deposing falsely against the accused/appellant.
22. Rajendra Singh was examined as PW-3. He deposed that
on 19.09.2020, he was unwell and sleeping at his house, when he
came to know that his brother, Pushkar Singh, had been shot by the
accused/appellant present in Court. Upon receiving such information,
he searched for his double barrel gun, which was kept in another
room, but found it missing. He further stated that the cartridges,
which were kept in an almirah, were also missing and the almirah was
found broken.
23. He stated that he had given the information of theft of his
gun and 20 live cartridges to Revenue Department Team on
19.09.2020. His written report is on record (Paper No. 05A/14),
bearing his signatures, which he identifies. He further alleged that the
accused/appellant present in the court had stolen his gun and
cartridges from his house, and committed the murder of his brother.
The witness further stated that he is a heart patient, at that time he
was also suffering from illness (typhoid), due to which he had become
physically weak and his hearing ability was also affected, due to which
reason, he could not tell the date clearly. He also stated that his
statement had been recorded twice during investigation.
24. During examination of PW3 Rajendra Singh two sealed
bundles containing details of case were opened in the court. Upon
opening the big bundle, a double barrel gun was taken out, which the
13
witness identified as the same gun allegedly stolen from his house and
used in committing murder of his brother, Pushkar Singh. The said
gun was marked as Material Exhibit M.O.-1 and the white cloth as
material Exhibit M.O.-2. and in addition to this, another bundle was
opened and a used plastic cartridge shell was taken out, which was
stated to have been recovered from the place where the
accused/appellant was allegedly hiding; however, the witness stated
that such recovery was not effected in his presence.
25. In his cross-examination, PW-3 stated that he had received
information regarding the incident from his grandson, Sachin aged
about 19-20 years over telephone, informing him that the
accused/appellant had shot Pushkar Singh. He was unable to clearly
state the exact time of receiving such information, though he indicated
it was in the evening.
26. He further stated that he had submitted his report in the
morning near the house of the deceased, though he did not know who
had written the report. He further stated that he had given the report
on the same day when the Patwari and Kanungo had come to the spot
and that no separate report was lodged thereafter. In the report, he
had stated that his gun was stolen on 18.09.2020, he himself stated
that he did not clearly remember whether the gun had been stolen on
18th or 19.09.2020.
27. He further stated that he was not aware of any prior
enmity between the deceased and the accused/appellant. He denied
the suggestion that the Patwari and Kanungo had themselves taken
the gun and cartridges from his house and had shown a fabricated
recovery from the accused/appellant, PW3 Rajendra Singh could not
14
tell the date on which date the gun was stolen from his house.
According to PW3 Rajendra Singh, the live cartridges, which were
allegedly stolen, were not received by him, nor he could know where
they are.
28. He denied the suggestion that the gun had been taken by
the police personnel from his house or that the alleged recovery of the
firearm from the accused/appellant was fabricated.
29. PW-4 Smt. Dimple Dangi is a neighbour of the deceased
who deposed having proceeded to spot where Pushkar Singh Dangi was
lying on the ground. Smt. Saraswati Devi told her about Neeraj Singh
having shot bullet at Pushkar Singh. When her father-in-law checked
Pushkar Singh he had died. Then the accused/appellant was searched,
who was hiding in the Goth (cattle room) of Himuli Devi. He ran
outside with gun. In her cross-examination, she denied the suggestion
that she did not see the accused/appellant coming out of the house of
Himuli Devi with gun in his hand. She admitted Smt. Saraswati Devi to
be her Jethani and deceased Pushkar Singh her Jeth. She also denied
the suggestion that the deceased being the Jeth she has wrongly stated
about the accused/appellant coming out of the house of Himuli Devi.
She also denied the suggestion that she is giving false evidence on the
advice of her father-in-law Ganga Singh.
30. PW-5 Shri Nain Singh is a labourer, who deposed having
found the accused/appellant hiding inside the bathroom of the temple
and he closed the door of the bathroom since Neeraj Singh told him
that he had shot bullet at Pushkar Singh and he was having gun. He
informed the Pradhan about Neeraj Singh being there and to call the
Patwari. Then villagers and Patwari came there and later police also
15
came who took away Neeraj Singh and gun. In his cross-examination,
the PW-5 stated that there was no written documentation in front of
him. Police may have caught the gun from Neeraj Singh. He was in the
field below. After coming, police halted for one and half hour. The
Patwari & police had enquired from him in the temple, thereafter
Patwari & police did not enquire from him. He also stated that the gun
was not recovered from Neeraj Singh in his presence. There was no
documentation of recovery of gun in front of him. He had seen Neeraj
Singh at 12:00-1:00 in the day.
31. PW-6 is Dr. Lal Singh Bora, Senior Surgeon, B.D. Pandey
District Hospital, Pithoragarh who conducted post-mortem
examination of Pushkar Singh. He deposed that on the examination of
chest and ribs, there were many pellets present in the left chest (front),
in the right lungs there were two pellets. During the post-mortem
examination he sealed many pellets in a jar, two envelopes-in one
blood sample & in another two X-rays, one bundle containing clothes
of deceased were given in the custody of the Patwari. In his opinion the
cause of death of deceased was due to shock on account of excessive
bleeding which is possible from ante-mortem fire arm injury. He proved
the sample seal of the material given in the custody of the Patwari after
sealing and the sample seal was marked as Exhibit P-3. He also proved
the post- mortem report which was marked as Exhibit P-4. In his
cross-examination, he stated that death is also possible in the morning
of 19.09.2020.
32. PW-7 Police Inspector Hem Chandra Pant who was posted
as SHO Berinag on 20.09.2020 deposed having gone to Naminal Devta
Mandir, Purana Thal where the accused/appellant was hiding in a
bathroom. He alongwith the police team, Patwari & Ex-Pradhan
16
Laxman Singh reached near the bathroom in the premises of temple
and told the accused/appellant, Neeraj Singh to surrender. That
person believed them and opened the door having one double barrel
gun & a bag containing cartridges. On search of the bag there were 19
live cartridges. The accused/appellant was arrested at 12:05 hours.
33. The recovered double barrel gun was kept in white cloth
and cartridges were kept in the same bag and sealed and sample seal
was prepared. Memo was prepared on the spot bearing his signatures
and he identified his signatures and was marked as Exhibit 5. On the
spot gun was sealed by IO & prepared sample seal. In his cross-
examination, he stated that they had proceeded from the Thana at 9:00
o’clock whose entry would be in G.D. Copy of G.D. is not on record. He
denied the suggestion that Neeraj Singh had not told him that he had
stolen the gun from the house of Rajendra Singh and shot at Pushkar
Singh yesterday night. He denied the suggestion that the memo was
prepared in the Thana and all had signed in the Thana. He also denied
the suggestion that the gun and cartridges were brought from house of
Rajendra Singh and fabricated false recovery was shown from the
accused/appellant. He also denied the suggestion that the
accused/appellant was not arrested from near Naminal Devta Mandir,
Purana Thal. He denied the suggestion that no gun or cartridges/shell
was recovered in front of him.
34. PW-8 Shri Govind Singh is a witness of the inquest report
& deposed having gone to the place of incident when Rajendra Singh
had telephonically informed him about someone having fired bullet at
Pushkar Singh. He identified his signatures on the inquest report. In
his cross-examination he stated not seeing Neeraj Singh in the Goth
17
(cattle room) of Himuli Devi. He denied the suggestion having seen the
accused/appellant running away with gun.
35. PW-9 Bipin Chandra Pathak was posted as Rajaswa Up
Nirikshak, Patti Chauki Thal. In September 2020 he was attached to
District Headquarter Pithoragarh for police work training due to which
he had given the charge to senior Rajaswa Up Nirikshak Pushkar Ram
Sanguri who was Rajaswa Up Nirikshak of adjacent Patti Aamthal.
36. According to PW9 Bipin Chandra Pathak, Shri Pushkar
Ram Sangudi had recorded the Chik FIR regarding the incident
committed by accused/appellant, Neeraj Singh; Shri Pushkar Ram
Sangudi has died on 15.01.2021. According to PW3 Rajendra Singh,
Shri Pushkar Ram Sangudi has worked with him and he has seen him
reading, writing and signing. The Chik FIR recorded by Shri Pushkar
Ram Sangudi has been signed by him, which is marked as Exhibit P-
6. After registering the case, Shri Pushkar Ram Sangudi recorded the
statements of informant, Ganga Singh on 20.09.2020 and the
accused/appellant was arrested by the joint team of the police. Arrest
memo and recovery of double barrel gun is in the file as Exhibit P-5
and at place B is the signature of Shri Pushkar Ram Sangudi. On the
pointing out of the witnesses on 20.09.2020, the Rajaswa Up-
Nirikshak, Shri Pushkar Ram Sangudi, went to the place of occurrence
and prepared the site plan, which is on record. The said site plan bears
the signatures of Shri Pushkar Ram Sangudi, the same has been
marked as Exhibit P-7.
37. PW3 Rajendra Singh further stated that on 20.09.2020
itself, Shri Pushkar Ram Sangudi collected blood-stained soil and
cement from the site and prepared its memo, which is signed by Shri
18
Pushkar Ram Sangudi and it is marked as Exhibit P-8. Further, on the
same day, Rajaswa Up-Nirikshak Shri Pushkar Ram Sangudi prepared
the recovery memo of the empty cartridge shell, which is on record and
signed by Shri Pushkar Ram Sangudi, which is marked as Exhibit P-9.
The blood-stained soil, live cartridges and empty cartridge shell were
sealed at the spot, and a sample seal was prepared. The same is on
record, bears the signatures of Shri Pushkar Ram Sangudi, and the
same has been marked as Exhibit P-10 and Exhibit P-11.
38. On 20.09.2020, an application was submitted before the
Chief Medical Officer for conducting the post-mortem examination and
for preserving the pellets found in the body of the deceased, along with
the clothes of the deceased, which is on record, bears the signatures of
Shri Pushkar Ram Sangudi, and has been marked as Exhibit P-12. On
that day, Rajaswa Up-Nirikshak, Shri Pushkar Ram Sangudi prepared
the Panchayatnama of the deceased. The said Panchayatnama is on
record, bears his signatures, and has been marked as Exhibit P-13.
Further, on that day itself, Shri Pushkar Ram Sangudi prepared the
photo-nash and Challan of the dead body, and also sealed the blood-
stained clothes of the deceased and prepared a sample seal thereof,
which are on record, bear signatures of Shri Pushkar Ram Sangudi,
and have been marked as Exhibit P-14, Exhibit P-15, and Exhibit P-16.
39. During the course of investigation, Shri Pushkar Ram
Sangudi also recorded the statements of the witnesses. After
completion of his training, he presented himself at the original Patti
Thana, Kshetra Thal and in compliance with the order of Nayab
Tehsildar, he took over the investigation of the present case on
24.10.2020. On that day, he received entire relevant documents, case
diary and case material. He further deposed that on 30.10.2020, he
19
recorded the statements of Sher Singh, a witness to the inquest report.
On 25.11.2020, he appeared before the Court of the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Pithoragarh, and submitted an application for sending the
case material to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL). The said
application is on record, bears his signatures, which he identified, and
has been marked as Exhibit P-17.
40. He further stated that, as a special messenger, he
proceeded to FSL, Dehradun on 26.11.2020 and he submitted the
materials of the case in the FSL on 27.11.2020 vide Receipt No.
1911/2020. The format of forwarding letter which also contains the
noting of the receipt, is on record, bears his signatures, which he
identified, and has been marked as Exhibit P-18. On 17.12.2020, he
recorded the statements of Dr. Lal Singh Bora, Senior Surgeon and
witness of post-mortem. On 08.12.2020, he also recorded further
statements of the informant Ganga Singh and eye-witness Smt.
Saraswati Devi and on their pointing out, went to the place of incident
and prepared site plan, which is on record, bears his signatures, which
he identified, and has been marked as Exhibit P-19. On the same day,
he also recorded the statements of witnesses Dimple Karki and Himuli
Devi.
41. He further stated that on 17.12.2020, he recorded the
statements of other witnesses having found sufficient evidence against
the accused/appellant; he submitted the charge-sheet before the court
on the same day. The charge-sheet is on record, bears his signatures,
which he identified, and has been marked as Exhibit P-20.
42. During cross-examination, PW-9 Bipin Chandra Pathak
stated that the earlier Investigating Officer, Shri Pushkar Ram Sangudi
20
did not prepare any document in his presence, nor were statements of
any witnesses recorded in his presence. He denied the suggestion that
the site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared in his office. He
also denied the suggestion that signatures of witnesses were obtained
in his office in a false manner.
43. He admitted that prior to 24.10.2020, no proceedings or
inquiry took place in his presence. He stated that he could not say
which documents were prepared earlier or at whose instance they were
prepared. He further stated that he recorded the statement of the
previous Investigating Officer on the second day after taking over the
investigation but could not tell the exact time.
44. He stated that he did not make Jagmohan Dwivedi a
witness, nor did he take his statement; he might have recorded the
statement of Sher Singh, he does not remember. He further stated that
he went to FSL, Dehradun on 26.11.2020, does not remember the
time; he took a bus to Dehradun. The bus reaches there the next
morning at around 6:00 AM, and deposited the case material in FSL,
Dehradun between 10:00 to 10:30 AM.
45. He denied the suggestion that he had not recorded the
statement of Dr. Lal Singh Bora. He also denied the suggestion that he
had never made any inquiry from Dimple Karki and Himuli Devi. He
further denied the suggestion that he had not recorded statements of
Pooran Singh, Govind Singh and Rajendra Singh. He also denied the
suggestion that statements of Kumer Singh, Krishna Singh and
Chandra were not recorded. He further denied that he had not
recorded statements of Basanti Devi, Laxman Singh, Nain Singh and
Constable Sanjeev Yadav. He also denied the suggestion that he
21
recorded statements of all witnesses while sitting in his office. He also
denied the suggestion that, without conducting any investigation under
the influence of the informant, he had submitted a wrong charge-sheet
in the court. He further denied the suggestion that he is deposing
falsely in order to implicate the accused/appellant under the influence
of the informant.
46. After the completion of prosecution evidence, the
statement of the accused/appellant was recorded under Section 313 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein he denied the entire
prosecution case and contended that he had wrongly been implicated
and false & fabricated recovery of the gun and cartridges had been
prepared, and that an incorrect charge-sheet had been filed against
him. He also contended that he is innocent and has falsely been
implicated in the present case.
47. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court heard the arguments
advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and after going
through the entire record, came to the conclusion that the
accused/appellant, Neeraj Singh, had stolen a double-barrel gun and
20 live cartridges belonging to Rajendra Singh from his house on the
night of 18.09.2020 and committed the murder of Pushkar Singh by
firing bullet from the said gun at around 9:30 PM on 19.09.2020 and
the gun from which the accused/appellant committed murder of
Pushkar Singh and 19 live cartridges were recovered by the police from
the possession of the accused/appellant on 20.09.2020 at 12:05 O’
clock from near bathroom of Naminal Devta Mandir, Purana Thal and
thus, concluded that the prosecution has been able to successfully
prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused/appellant
under Sections 302, 380, 457, and 411 of the Indian Penal Code, as
22
well as under Section 5 read with Section 27(1) of the Arms Act.
Accordingly, the accused/appellant was convicted under the said
sections and sentenced accordingly, vide judgment and order dated
09.08.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh in
Sessions Trial No.06 of 2021, ‘State vs. Neeraj Singh’. The said
judgment and order has been challenged by way of the present
criminal jail appeal.
48. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
49. Learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant argued that the
accused/appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the
present case. The accused/appellant has not committed any crime and
the incident has not occurred in the manner as portrayed by the
prosecution.
50. At the outset, learned counsel drew the attention of the
Court to the First Information Report (FIR) and submitted that there is
no mention therein that Smt. Saraswati Devi W/o Pushkar Singh had
witnessed the accused/appellant firing at the deceased, Pushkar
Singh. Rather, the FIR reflects that there was only a suspicion that the
shot may have been fired from the roof. It was further stated that two
or three persons went to the terrace but did not find anyone there. The
courtyard (angan) was illuminated, yet no person was seen fleeing from
the spot.
51. The next submission of Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, learned Amicus
Curiae for the accused/appellant is that the report regarding the theft
of the gun from the house of Rajendra Singh, allegedly committed on
18.09.2020, does not name anyone. It was further submitted that
23
although the said report is dated 19.09.2020, it was received in the
office of the Rajaswa Up-Nirikshak, Aamthal/Thal, only on 21.09.2020
at 7:30 AM. It was contended that this delay indicates that the report
was subsequently fabricated to falsely implicate the accused/appellant.
52. It was further argued that in the site plan dated
20.09.2020, the presence of the accused/appellant is not shown.
However, in the subsequent site plan prepared on 08.12.2020, the
presence of the accused/appellant was introduced at a location
marked as “G”, which indicates material improvement in the
prosecution case.
53. Learned Amicus Curiae for the accused/appellant also
contended that although PW-2, Smt. Saraswati Devi, has stated that
the accused/appellant fired the bullet, then FIR itself records
uncertainty by stating that “gesa lans’kk gqvk fd xksyh ‘kk;n Nr ls ekjh xbZ”
thereby creating a serious contradiction.
54. It was also argued that the alleged recovery of the double-
barrel gun and cartridges is planted and that no such recovery was
made from the possession of the accused/appellant. It was further
contended that there is no independent witness of arrest and recovery
of double barrel gun and cartridges. It was further contended that it is
a sheer case of improvement by the prosecution.
55. Per contra, learned State Counsel, Mr. Pankaj Joshi,
contended that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable
doubt and that no interference is warranted in the present appeal. It is
submitted that the learned Trial Court has rightly appreciated the
evidence on record and correctly convicted the accused/appellant.
24
56. However, learned State Counsel fairly conceded that the
First Information Report does not specifically mention the presence of
Smt. Saraswati Devi at the place of occurrence. He was also unable to
offer any satisfactory explanation regarding the site plan wherein the
place marked “I” indicates the position of Smt. Saraswati Devi,
allegedly standing on the uppermost step at the time when the
accused/appellant, Neeraj Singh fired bulled at the deceased, Pushkar
Singh. However, the PW-2, Smt. Saraswati Devi in her statement has
categorically stated that she was standing behind her husband when
he came out and at that moment, the accused/appellant, Neeraj Singh
fired the shot.
57. Learned State Counsel also argued that the prosecution
witnesses are consistent in their version that the accused/appellant
had hid himself in the Goth (cattle room) and thereafter, ran out and
that he was seen in the emergency light, thereby supporting the
prosecution case.
58. It was also argued on behalf of the State by learned A.G.A.
that Late Pushkar Singh was the Gram Pradhan & he used to scold the
accused/appellant not to harass the girls and ladies of the village
hence, the accused/appellant had the motive to murder the deceased,
Pushkar Singh.
59. On due consideration of the rival submissions of learned
counsel for the parties, the outcome of the instant criminal jail appeal
hinges primarily on three aspects of the case viz. – (a) as to the veracity
of the statements of PW2, Smt. Saraswati Devi, in the light of the initial
version of the FIR, wherein her presence is missing, (b) the
introduction of the case by Rajendra Singh regarding the theft of a
25
double barrel gun and cartridges from his house and (c) the arrest of
the accused/appellant and the alleged recovery of the double barrel
gun and cartridges of Rajendra Singh from the accused/appellant.
60. If the FIR is closely examined, it states that on 19.09.2020
at 9:30 p.m., the informant heard the sound of bullet and the shouting
of daughter-in-law and when he came out, he saw his nephew Pushkar
Singh fallen on the ground. It was doubted that probably the bullet
might have been fired from the roof top. If this allegation of the FIR is
compared with the statements of Smt. Saraswati Devi, the PW2 then
the statement of PW2 Saraswati Devi that Neeraj Singh had shot at her
husband and she had seen it, is totally against the FIR version which
though mentions about the shouting by daughter-in-law (PW2,
Sarawati Devi) but at the same time, the FIR is silent about the PW2
having seen the accused/appellant firing bullet at the deceased,
otherwise this aspect would have been narrated in the FIR itself. The
contradictions between the FIR and the statements of PW2, Smt.
Saraswati Devi is further evident from site plan dated 08.12.2020
where the presence of the PW2, Smt. Saraswati Devi is shown on the
last upper step. Thus, there is total mismatch in the prosecution
version regarding the gunshot by the accused/appellant on the
deceased, Pushkar Singh.
61. The next aspect of the case is regarding the report lodged
by Rajendra Singh about missing of his DBBL gun and 20 live
cartridges. A perusal of the said report addressed to the Patti Patwari
Thal, Tehsil Thal, District Pithoragarh would reveal that the same is
stated 19.09.2020 and it alleges that the missing of gun and 20
cartridges from the evening of 18.09.2020 and although it is dated
19.09.2020, the same has been submitted with the Rajaswa Up-
26
Nirikshak, Aamthal/Thal only on 21.09.2020. A perusal of the report
dated 19.09.2020 shows that by interpolation/change date of
19.09.2020, has been changed to 18.09.2020. The said report does not
inspire confidence. Firstly, if the double barrel gun and cartridges were
stolen in the evening of 18.09.2020 when Rajendra Singh had returned
in the evening of 18.09.2020, then having noticed missing of his gun
and breaking open of lock of the almirah, he ought to have reported the
matter to Patti Patwari Thal, Tehsil Thal, District Pithoragarh on
19.09.2020 and not on 21.09.2020 as evident from the record. The
theft report of the gun and cartridges being after the incident and also
in the backdrop that the arrest of the accused/appellant having been
shown alongwith the gun and 19 live cartridges on 20.09.2020, where
there are no independent witnesses in spite of the presence of many
persons on this point, draws an adverse inference against the
prosecution that the theft report was only with an objective to co-relate
the recovery of double barrel gun from the accused/appellant. So far as
the arrest of the accused/appellant along with the double barrel gun
and 19 live cartridges is concerned, the same does not inspire
confidence in as much as there is no independent eye-witnesses and
the recovery appears to be planted recovery as has been argued on
behalf of the accused/appellant by the learned Amicus Curiae.
62. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the
case and after minute scrutiny of the respective statements of the
prosecution witnesses and the record and due consideration of the
rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court is of
the considered opinion that the statements of PW1, PW2 and PW3 are
having material inconsistencies regarding the gunshot by the
accused/appellant on the deceased Pushkar Singh as has been
discussed in detail in the preceding paragraphs and the prosecution
27
has failed to prove the charges against the accused/appellant beyond a
shadow of doubt and thus, the accused/appellant is entitled to be
acquitted of the charges under Sections 302, 457, 380, 411 and
Section 5 r/w Section 27(1) of the Arms Act. The instant appeal
deserves to be allowed.
63. The appeal is allowed.
64. The impugned judgment and order dated 09.08.2023
passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh in Sessions Trial
No.06 of 2021, State of Uttarakhand vs. Neeraj Singh (arising out of
Case Crime No.01 of 2020, under Sections 302, 457, 380, 411 of IPC
and Section 5/27(1) of the Arms Act) is hereby set-aside.
65. The appellant is acquitted of the charge under Sections
302, 457, 380, 411 IPC and Section 5 read with Section 27(1) of the
Arms Act, 1959.
66. Let the accused/appellant be released forthwith from the
custody, if not required in any other case, after due compliance of
Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. (corresponding Section 481 of BNSS) within
three weeks from today.
67. Let a copy of this judgment along with the original records
be sent to the trial court concerned.
(Siddhartha Sah, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.)
29.04.2026 29.04.2026
Akash
