Allahabad High Court
Ramveer vs State Of U.P. on 4 August, 2026
Author: Raj Beer Singh
Bench: Raj Beer Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:161908
Reserved
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1509 of 2025
Ramveer
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Respondent(s)
Along with :
1.
Criminal Appeal No. 1450 of 2025:
Bijendra and 2 others
Versus
State of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
Garun Pal Singh, Santosh Kumar Singh, Surendra Singh Rajput
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 89
HON'BLE RAJ BEER SINGH, J.
1. Both the aforesaid criminal appeals are connected as the same have been preferred against one and same judgment thus, both are being decided together.
2. The Criminal Appeal No. 1450 of 2025 has been preferred on behalf of appellant Bijendra, Jagdish and Raju against judgment and order dated 23.01.2025, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Hathras in S.T.No.213 of 2015 (State Vs. Vijendra and others), under Section 323/34, 504, 307/ 34 IPC, Crime No.316 of 2015, P.S. Sadabad, District Hathras and S.T. No.233 of 2015 (State Vs. Vijendra), under Section 25 Arms Act, P.S. Sadabad, Case Crime No.382 of 2015, District Hathras, whereby appellants, namely, Vijendra, Jagdish, Raju and Ramveer have been convicted under Sections 323/ 34, 307/ 34, 504 IPC and they were sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 5000/- each under Section 307/ 34 IPC, one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 323/ 34 IPC, one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 504 IPC. Appellant Vijendra was further convicted under Section 25 Arms Act and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.3000/-.
3. Criminal Appeal No.1509 of 2025 has been preferred by appellant Ramveer against above referred impugned judgment and order.
4. Heard Sri S.S. Rajpati, learned counsel for appellants and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
5. As per prosecution version, on 06.04.2015 at about 8:30 PM, while brother of informant, namely, Mukesh was coming to his village on motorcycle and reached near the village, appellants-accused Vijendra, Jagdish, Raju and Ramveer caught him and started abusing him. When Mukesh objected, they have assaulted him with legs and fists. Mukesh tried to run away but appellants/ accused Raju, Ramveer and Jagdish exhorted appellant/ accused Vijendra that he must not be spared today and to kill him. On that exhortation, appellant/ accused Vijendra took out a pistol from his waist and fired a bullet at Mukesh. Resultantly Mukesh sustained fire-arm injury at the back of his abdomen. Hearing sound of fire, one Ashok, Vasudev and some other persons reached at the spot and thereafter accused persons ran away by threatening them. Informant Sitaram took his brother Mukesh to police post Govindpur and from there he was sent to CHC, Sadabad and from there he was referred to G.G. Nursing Home, Agra. The informant Sitaram reported the matter to police by submitting tehreer Exhibit Ka-1, on the basis of which the case was registered on 07.04.2015 at about 10.05 hours vide first information report under Sections 307, 323, 504 IPC.
6. The Investigating Officer took up the investigation. The injured Mukesh was medically examined on 06.04.2015 vide medical examination report Exhibit Ka-6. The Investigating Officer recorded statements of witnesses. Accused persons were arrested and on 30.04.2015 during police custody of accused Vijendra, a country made pistol alongwith one cartridge was recovered at his instance, which were taken into possession vide recovery memo Exhibit Ka-8. The Investigating Officer prepared site-plan of the spot and collected medical documents. After completion of investigation, appellants-accused Vijendra, Jagdish, Raju and Ramveer were charge-sheeted for offence under Sections 323, 504, 307/ 34 IPC. By a separate charge-sheet, appellant Vijendra was further charge-sheeted for offence under Section 25 Arms Act. Learned Magistrate took cognizance and committed both the cases to the court of Session.
7. Learned trial Court framed charge under Sections 307/34, 323/ 34, 504 IPC against appellants-accused, namely, Vijendra, Jagdish, Raju and Ramveer. Appellant-accused Vijendra Singh was further charged for offence under Section 25 Arms Act. Appellants-accused pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.
8. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined eight witnesses. PW-1 Sitaram is informant of the case, PW-2 Mukesh Kumar is injured, PW- 3 Vasudev and PW-4 Ashok are eye-witness. PW-5 Dr. Dinesh Chandra Goyal has provided treatment to the injured and proved certain medical documents. PW-6 S.I. Ashish Kumar Yadav has conducted investigation, PW-7 Dr. Tarun Kumar Singh has medically examined injured Mukesh and PW-7A Head Constable Chaitanya Prakash has recorded first information report. PW-8 S.I. Ram Bhul Sharma has conducted investigation of case Crime No.177 of 2015, under Section 25 Arms Act.
9. After prosecution evidence, accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they have denied prosecution evidence and claimed that they have been falsely implicated in this case. In defence evidence, one Dheeraj has been examined as DW-1.
10. After hearing and analyzing evidence on record, learned trial Court convicted the appellants under Sections 307/ 34, 323/ 34, 504 IPC and appellant Vijendra Kumar was further convicted under Section 25 Arms Act and they were sentenced as referred above.
11. Being aggrieved, appellants have preferred this present criminal appeals.
12. Learned counsel for appellants submitted that the trial Court has failed to appreciate evidence and misread the evidence. As per prosecution version, the role of exhortation was attributed to appellants-accused namely, Ramveer, Raju and Jagdish and role of firing shot at injured Mukesh @ Lohara was attributed to appellant Vijendra. There are material contradictions in the statements of witnesses. Referring to statement of PW-1 Sitaram, it was submitted that it is wholly doubtful that he has witnessed the incident and his presence at the spot is doubtful. The testimony of injured PW-2 Mukesh @ Lohara is also doubtful and in fact he has told about the incident to his brother after three days, which creates a serious doubt about authenticity of his version. It is further submitted that PW-3 Vasudeo and PW- 4 Ashok are interested witnesses. PW- 3 Vasudeo is family member of informant and PW- 4 Ashok is brother of injured. Referring to statement of PW- 4 Ashok, it was submitted that he has not witnessed the incident.
13. It is further submitted that only one fire-arm injury has been shown to the injured, which is at the back of his body and no bullet was recovered from his body. Except said fire-arm injury, no other injury was shown. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that attending facts show that nobody has seen the incident and that injured gained consciousness after three days of the incident and it is not clear that on what basis the first information report was lodged. It is doubtful that injured may have seen the assailant, who has fired at his back. The seat of injury has been shown at the back of injured and it is quite probable that he might not have seen the person, who had fired at him. It was stated that as per prosecution version, the accused persons have done marpeet with injured but except the fire-arm injury, no other injury was shown. No source of light has been shown at the spot. No motive has been established on part of appellants to indulge in such incident.
14. It is further submitted that recovery of alleged tamancha and one used cartridge shown from appellant -accused Vijendra is wholly doubtful and there is no independent witness of the said recovery. The tamancha and bullet were not sent to FSL for examination and prosecution has failed to connect the said recovery with the incident in question.
15. It is further submitted that in view of attending facts, it appears a case of hit and run in night hours and there is no evidence of pre-meditation among appellants-accused so as to attract Section 34 IPC. It was submitted that appellants have been falsely implicated in this case due to family dispute and for extracting money and the impugned judgment is not based on evidence and thus liable to be set aside. In support of its case, learned counsel for appellants has relied upon following case laws:-
(i) Vasant @ Girish Akbarasab Sanavale and Another Vs. The State of Karnataka 2025 0 Supreme (SC) 348
16. Learned AGA has opposed the appeal and submitted that the injured/ PW-2 Mukesh @ Lohara has made clear and cogent statement and the same is corroborated by the eye-witness PW- 1 Sitaram and PW- 3 Vasudeo. The testimony of injured is further supported by medical evidence. The attending facts show that fire-arm injuries to the injured were caused in furtherance of common intention of all the accused / appellants. There is no material contradiction in the statements of eye-witnesses. Referring to impugned judgment it was submitted that conviction of appellants is based on evidence. The trial Court has considered entire evidence and on the basis of evidence convicted the appellants. It was submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment and order and thus, this appeal is liable to be dismissed.
17. I have considered rival submissions and perused the record.
18. As per medical examination report, injured Mukesh @ Lohara has sustained following injuries:-
“(i) Penetrating wound (depth will be assessed by surgeon), Oval of about size 4×2 cm longitudinal with Inverted margins, on back in midline (in L2-L3 region) fresh blood present, kept under observation for X-Ray.
(ii) Blackening is present around wound.
Adv
Chest X-Ray P A view
X-Ray Abdomen Aperved
X-Ray pelvis e both hip – AP
X-Ray L-S Spine
Opinion:- Above described injury is kept under observation, may be caused by fire-arm, final opinion after X-Ray report.”
19. In evidence, PW-1 Sitaram, who is informant of the case, has stated that on 06.04.2015 at about 08:30 PM while his brother Mukesh (injured) was coming from Kanjauli and reached near the village, appellants/ accused namely, Vijendra, Jagdish, Raju and Ramveer caught him and started abusing him. When Mukesh objected, they have assaulted him with legs and fists. Mukesh tried to run away and raised an alarm but appellants, namely Raju, Ramveer and Jagdish exhorted appellant Vijendra to kill him. Appellant Vijendra took out a pistol from his waist clothes and fired a bullet at Mukesh. Said bullet hit at back of Mukesh and he sustained injuries and fell down. Hearing his noise, informant/ PW-1 Sitaram, one Vasudeo and other persons reached there and thereafter appellants-accused ran away threatening them. PW-1 Sitaram has further stated that they took injured Mukesh to Police Post Govindpur and from there injured was taken to CHC, Sadabad. Due to his serious condition, he was referred to Agra. They took injured to Agra and he was admitted in G.G. Nursing Home, Agra and after that he reported the matter to the police by submitting Tehreer Exhibit- Ka-1.
20. PW-2 Mukesh is the injured witness and he has stated that on 06.04.2015 as usual he was bringing milk on his motorcycle from Kanjauli and as he reached near the village, appellants Raju and Ramveer came from one side and appellants Vijendra and Jagdish came from other side and at about 08:30 PM they caught him and started abusing him. When he objected, appellants-accused assaulted him and when he tried to run away, appellants, namely, Raju, Ramveer and Jagdish exhorted appellant Vijendra that he (injured) must not be spared today and kill him. Thereafter, Vijendra took out a pistol from his waist-cloth and fired a bullet at him and resultantly he sustained fire-arm injury at his back. It was further stated that after sustaining bullet, he fell down and he was taken to the hospital.
21. PW- 3 Vasudeo has stated that on 06.04.2015 at about 08:30 PM after hearing noise, he along with Sitaram reached at the spot and saw that all the four appellants were assaulting injured Mukesh @ Lohara. Thereafter, on exhortation of accused / appellant Raju, Jagdish and Ramveer, the accused / appellant Vijendra fired a bullet at injured Mukesh, which hit at his back.
22. PW- 4 Ashok has stated that on 06.04.2015 at about 08:30 PM, while his brother Mukesh @ Lohara was bringing milk from Kanjauli and reached near his village, all the four appellants-accused caught and assaulted him. After hearing his cries, when he was going to the spot, he heard the sound of firing and when he reached at the spot, he saw that his brother Mukesh was lying in pool of blood and appellants-accused were running away, saying that injured has escaped today and next time they would not leave him.
23. PW-5 Dinesh Chandra Goyal has stated that he is working as surgeon in S.N. Medical College, Agra. On 06.04.2015 at about 11:30 PM, injured Mukesh @ Lohara was medically examined there and he was admitted there. At about 01:00 AM operation of his abdomen was conducted and his small intestine was found burst and resultantly his blood has spread in parts of body. His intestine was stitched. He has further stated that one bullet was took out from his stomach, which was sealed. Injured was discharged from hospital on 17.04.2015. He has proved medical documents as Exhibit- Ka-2, Exhibit- Ka-3, Exhibit-Ka-4. Discharge slip was proved as Exhibit-Ka-5. Another medical document was proved as Exhibit-Ka-6.
24. PW-6 SI Ashish Kumar Yadav has investigated the case. He has stated that during investigation, he recorded statements of witnesses, including that of injured, and visited spot of incident. The site-plan of the spot was prepared vide Exhibit-Ka-7. He has further stated that on 30.04.2015 appellant Vijendra, while he was in custody, took the police to the shrubs at the corner of the road and he got recovered one country made pistol of 315 bore. In the said pistol, there was one used cartridge. The pistol and the said cartridge were sealed and taken into possession vide recovery memo Exhibit – Ka-8. After completion of investigation, appellants were charged for offence under Sections 323, 504, 307/ 34 IPC vide charge-sheet Exhibit- Ka-10.
25. PW- 7 Dr. Tarun Kumar Singh stated that on 06.04.2015 he was on duty at S.N. Medical College, Agra as Causality Medical Officer. On that day at about 10:10 PM, injured Mukesh was brought there and he was having bullet injury. He was admitted in emergency department of SN Medical College and police was informed. In his medical examination a penetrative wound of size 4×2 cm was shown at his back and fresh blood was coming out from the wound. Blackening was present around the wound. He was referred for X-ray. PW- 7 stated that said injury was possible by a fire-arm.
26. In defence evidence, DW – 1 Dheeraj has inter-alia stated that about 10 years back, some unknown bandits have fired a bullet at Mukesh @ Lohara at his back near his house. At that time, it was dark. DW-1 Dheeraj stated that at that time he was sitting at the door of his house and after incident he recognized the injured and informed his brother Sitaram. After that Sitaram, Vasudevo, Vijendra, Ramveer, Jagdish and Raju came at the spot and injured was taken to police-post Govindpur. When police have inquired as to who has fired the bullet at injured, DW-1 Dheeraj and Ashok told that they have not seen the assailant. He has stated that appellants, Ramveer, Vijendra, Raju and Jagdish were not involved in the incident and in fact some unknown persons have fired bullet at the injured. He has further stated that earlier there was some dispute between informant Sitaram and appellants-accused on issue of drainage and that Sitaram has lodged false report against appellants due to that reason.
27. After examining the evidence on record, it appears that the injured/ PW-2 Mukesh Kumar @ Lohara has made clear statement that he was caught by all the four appellants -accused and thereafter on exhortation of appellants, namely, Jagdish, Raju and Ramveer, the appellant-accused Vijendra has fired a bullet at him and resultantly he sustained firearm injury at his back. He has been subjected to cross-examination but no material contradiction or discrepancy could be shown. Merely because he has sustained injuries at his back, it does not mean that he was unable to see the assailant. PW-2 Mukesh Kumar @ Lohara is an injured witness and thus his presence at the spot can not be doubted. It is well settled that if testimony of injured witness inspires confidence, conviction can be based upon it. In Jarnail Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2009) 9SCC 719, the Supreme Court reiterated the special evidentiary status accorded to the testimony of an injured accused. It was held that the fact that witness sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence, lends support to his testimony as he was present during the occurrence. In case the injured witness is subjected to lengthy cross-examination and nothing could be elicited to discard his testimony, it should be relied upon. With respect to the evidence of victim, the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal Nos. 513-514 of 2014 (decided on 09.01.2017) Baleshwar Mahto & Anr. v. State of Bihar & Anr., has reiterated the law referring the case of Abdul Sayeed v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 10 SCC 259, which reads 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 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.”
28. In Shivalingappa Kallayanappa v. State of Karnataka [1994 Supp (3) SCC 235 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 1694], the 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 established 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) 2021], 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.
30. The law on the point can be summarized 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. The testimonies of the injured witnesses generally carry significant evidentiary weight. Such testimonies cannot be dismissed as unreliable unless there are pellucid and substantial discrepancies or contradictions that undermine their credibility. If there is any exaggeration in the deposition that is immaterial to the case, such exaggeration should be disregarded; however, it does not warrant the rejection of the entire evidence.
31. In the instant case, so far the role of accused / appellant Vijendra is concerned, no material contradiction or inconsistency could be shown in the testimony of injured PW- 2 Mukesh Kumar @ Lohara. As stated above, the role of causing fire-arm injury to the injured has been attributed to appellant-accused Vijendra. The version of injured PW- 2 Mukesh Kumar @ Lohara is supported by the medical evidence. Recovery of country made pistol and one dead cartridge was also shown from his possession. Merely because injured has sustained injury at his back, it does not mean that he was unable to see or recognize the assailant. Similarly, the fact that injured has stated that he gained consciousness after three days and told about the incident to his brother, is not sufficient to doubt the testimony of injured/ PW-2 Mukesh. It is quite natural that when the incident took place he saw the assailants and after sustaining injuries, he may have been unconscious and thus when he gained consciousness he told about the incident to his brother. It is well settled that testimony of injured itself is sufficient for sustaining conviction if it is found credible and inspires confidence of the court. Corroboration is a rule of caution and not a legal necessity. As far as this contention is concerned that incident took place at about 08:30 PM and it was dark at that time, it may be stated that incident took place in month of April and that appellants-accused as well as injured are residents of the same place and thus they were known to each other. In view of these facts, it is quite probable that injured was in a position to recognize the miscreants / appellants-accused.
32. So far this contention is concerned that informant/ PW-1 Sitaram and PW-3 Vasudev are interested witness, as they are related to the injured, it may be stated that there is no such law that testimony of a family member of victim can not be believed. The only requirement is that testimony of such persons must be examined with care and caution. Both these witnesses have made consistent statements. These witnesses have been subjected to cross-examination but no material contradiction or inconsistency could be shown in their statements. Only a vague case was put up that there was some previous dispute between the parties and appellants have been falsely implicated due to that reason. In view of attending facts and evidence on record, the defence version has no substance. There is nothing to show that during investigation, DW-1 Dheeraj has made any such statement to the police that some unknown person had fired bullet at the injured. There is nothing to show that DW-1 has made in any complaint to the police or any higher authority that appellants have been falsely implicated on account of previous enmity. Thus, the defence version is not reliable.
33. In view of evidence on record, so far appellant Vijendra is concerned, there is clear and cogent evidence that he has fired a bullet at the injured PW-2 Mukesh @ Lohara and resultantly he sustained fire-arm injury at the back of his abdomen. The version of injured is supported by medical evidence as well as by statements of PW-1 and PW- 3. Thus, so far appellant Vijendra is concerned, there is overwhelming evidence on record to sustain his conviction under section 307 IPC.
34. So far conviction of appellant Vijendra under section 25 Arms Act is concerned, it appears from record that conviction under section 25 Arms Act is based on sole testimony of PW-6 SI Ashish Kumar Yadav. He has stated that during investigation on 30.04.2015 police custody remand of appellant Vijendra was granted and during police custody remand appellant Vijendra took the police to the shrubs at the corner of the road and he got recovered one country made pistol of 315 bore along with used cartridge. The pistol and the said cartridge were sealed and taken into possession vide recovery memo Exhibit?Ka-8. His testimony is not corroborated by any other witness. In his cross-examination, PW- 6 has admitted that said recovered pistol and cartridge were not sent to Ballistic expert or FSL. At the time of his statement, PW-6 has admitted that the said pistol was not in working order. There is absolutely no evidence that said pistol was not in working order. In view of these facts and circumstances the conviction of appellant Vijendra under section 25 Arms Act is not sustainable and thus liable to be set aside.
35. As far as the appellants, namely, Ramveer, Jagdish and Raju are concerned, they have been convicted with the aid of Section 34 IPC. Provisions of Section 34 IPC make a co-perpetrator, who had participated in the offence, equally liable on the principle of joint liability. For applicability of Section 34 IPC there should be common intention between the co-perpetrators, which means that there should be community of purpose and common design or prearranged plan. In case of Vasant @ Girish Akbarasab Sanavale (supra), Hon’ble Apex Court held as under:
”38. If there is one decision explaining Section 34 IPC which could be termed as locus classicus then the same is the Allahabad High Court decision in the case of Om Prakash Vs. State reported in 1956 CrLJ 452. Justice M.H. Beg (as His Lordship then was) has beautifully explained the provision and its applicability.
39. In order that an intention should be common, it should be attributable to every member of the group. This is also clarified by the fact that the section itself characterises the common intention to be the ‘common, intention of all’. Section 34, IPC, therefore, does not ignore the intention of the individual offender.
40. It only adds some more persons in the commission of the offence and postulates that the same intention was jointly existing in the mind of every individual member of the group as well. It may be that the intention was alleged to be common, but that only means that every member shared it along with others and not the some members shared it and others did not.
41. The common intention required under Section 34 Penal Code need not, however, be identical with the guilty intention or ‘mens rea’ which is the ingredient of the offence and is to be distinguished from it. The latter might be coincident with or collateral to the former.”
36. The principle governing the application of Section 34 IPC has also been considered in Chhota Ahirwar v. State of M.P. (2020) 4 SCC 268. It was held that Section 34 IPC is only attracted when a specific criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, in which case all the offenders are liable for that criminal act in the same manner as the principal offender as if the act were done by all the offenders. This section does not whittle down the liability of the principal offender committing the principal act but additionally makes all other offenders liable. The essence of liability under Section 34 is simultaneous consensus of the minds of persons participating in the criminal act to bring about a particular result, which consensus can even be developed at the spot. There must be a common intention to commit the particular offence. To constitute common intention, it is absolutely necessary that the intention of each one of the accused should be known to the rest of the accused.
37. In the instant matter, the statement of injured and other witnesses are to the effect that initially all the four appellants-accused have caught the injured/ PW-2 Mukesh @ Lohara and assaulted him and thereafter on exhortation of appellants Jagdish, Raju and Ramveer, the appellant- accused Vijendra has fired at him. Except one fire-arm injury to the injured, no other injury has been shown on body of injured/ PW-2 Mukesh and thus, the prosecution version that all the four accused persons have assaulted the injured with legs and fists is not supported by medical evidence. Further, regarding common intention merely a vague allegation has been made that these three appellants, namely, Ramveer, Jagdish and Raju have made exhortation by saying that injured must not be spared today and kill him. It does not appear probable that all these three appellants-accused would have made a similar statement simultaneously in order to exhort appellant-accused Vijendra. As stated earlier the prosecution version that these three appellants have assaulted the injured is not supported by medical evidence. It is not uncommon that some times innocent persons are implicated by assigning the role of exhortation. The attending facts and evidence on record raise a serious doubt about involvement of these three appellants-accused in the incident. There is no such evidence that these three appellants have caused any injury to the injured / PW-2 Mukesh. There is no evidence regarding pre-meditation of mind by appellants-accused so as to attract Section 34 IPC. It is well settled that prosecution has to prove its case beyond doubt against each of the appellants-accused. Considering material on record and above stated facts, it appears that involvement of these three appellants, namely, Jagdish, Ramveer and Raju in the incident is doubtful and thus they deserve for benefit of doubt.
38. Here, it may be added that merely because the prosecution version regarding involvement of these three appellants, namely, Jagdish, Ramveer and Raju has been found doubtful, it would not create any doubt regarding involvement of appellant-accused Vijendra in the incident. As stated above, so far appellant Vijendra is concerned, there is cogent and credible evidence regarding his involvement in the incident and in fact there is overwhelming evidence that he has caused the said fire-arm injury to the injured Mukesh @ Lohara.
39. Considering evidence on record, it appears that so far appellant Vijendra is concerned, the trial Court has appreciated evidence in accordance with law and that his conviction under Section 307 IPC is based on evidence. However, as appellant Vijendra is convicted under section 307 IPC, he is not required to be convicted under Section 323 IPC. Similarly, the evidence regarding Section 504 IPC is quite vague and only a vague allegation has been made that appellants-accused have abused the injured. In this regard evidence is quite vague and sketchy. Similarly the conviction of appellant Vijendra under Section 25 Arms Act is not based on evidence. As stated above the appellants, namely, Jagdish, Ramveer and Raju are liable to be acquitted of all the charges levelled against them.
40. So far question of sentence is concerned, it is well settled principle that sentence must be just and simultaneously, the principle of proportionality between the crime and punishment cannot be totally brushed aside. The principle of just punishment is the bedrock of sentencing in respect of a criminal offence. A punishment should not be disproportionately excessive. The concept of proportionality allows a significant discretion to the court but the same has to be guided by certain principles. In certain cases, the nature of culpability, the antecedents of the accused, the factum of age, the potentiality of the convict to become a criminal in future, capability of his reformation and to lead an acceptable life in the prevalent milieu, the effect – propensity to become a social threat or nuisance, and sometimes lapse of time in the commission of the crime and his conduct in the interregnum bearing in mind the nature of the offence, the relationship between the parties and attractability of the doctrine of bringing the convict to the value based social mainstream may be the guiding factors.
41. In the instant matter as per prosecution version the appellant-accused Vijendra Singh fired a bullet at the injured and resultantly he has sustained fire-arm injury at the back of his abdomen. The injury is at vital part of his body and it appears that it was dangerous to life. In view of attending facts and nature of injury, the sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 5000/- for offence under section 307 IPC appears justified and calls for no interference.
42. In view of aforesaid, the conviction and sentence the appellants, namely, Jagdish, Ramveer and Raju is set aside and they are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. The conviction of appellant Vijendra under section section 307 IPC is upheld but he is acquitted of charge under section 323, 504 IPC and section 25 Arms Act.
43. Appellant Vijendra is stated to be in jail. He shall serve out the sentence imposed on him. Appellants, namely, Jagdish, Ramveer and Raju shall be released forthwith from the jail in this case, if not wanted in any other case. The personal bonds of these three appellants Jagdish, Ramveer and Raju are cancelled and their sureties are discharged.
44. Criminal appeal No. 1509 of 2025 is allowed. Criminal Appeal No. 1450 of 2025 is partly allowed in above terms.
(Raj Beer Singh,J.)
August 4, 2026
‘SP’/-
Â
Â
