Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Rajwant Singh @ Raju Singh on 3 April, 2026
Author: Rajnish Kumar
Bench: Rajnish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC-LKO:23384-DB
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
APPLICATION U/S 378 No. - 368 of 2008
State of U.P.
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
Rajwant Singh @ Raju Singh
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
G.A.
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
Court No. - 10
HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J.
HON’BLE MRS. BABITA RANI, J. 1. Heard learned A.G.A. for the State / appellant and perused the records.
2. This application for leave to appeal under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C. has been filed for appeal against the judgment and order dated 23.06.2008 passed in Sessions Trial No.328/2005(State versus Sanad Singh) and Sessions Trial No.365/2005(State versus Monty Singh) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/FTC, Court No.3, Hardoi, both arising out of Case Crime No.64/2003 under Sections 307/34,504,323/34 I.P.C., Police Station Sursa, District Hardoi, by means of which, the accused Sanad Singh has been convicted under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to 5 years rigourous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo 6 months additional sentence and under Section 534 IPC with a punishment of 1 year imprisonment. However, he has been acquitted under Section 323/34 IPC giving the benefit of doubt. By means of the said judgment, the respondents Rajwant Singh, Monty Singh and Vivek Singh have been acquitted giving the benefit of doubt under Section 307/34, 504 and 323/34 IPC. Hence, this leave to appeal has been filed by the State.
3. Learned A.G.A. submits that the prosecution case has been duly proved by the prosecution witnesses as well as the evidence placed on record, however, the learned trial court wrongly and illegally passed the impugned judgement and order without considering the evidence and material on record and dealing it appropriately, by means of which the respondents have been acquitted, whereas the respondents could not have been acquitted as the charges against the respondents were proved. Thus, the submission is that the impugned judgment and order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be set aside, therefore, the leave to appeal may be granted and the appeal may be heard and decided on merit.
4. We have considered the submissions of learned A.G.A. as well as gone through the records.
5. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the F.I.R. was lodged by the complainant Mangat Ram, at Police Station Sursa on 18.03.2003 on the basis of a written complaint, alleging therein that on the said date at about 6:00 p.m. in the evening, when he alongwith his nephew Amar Singh @ Neelu, Krishnapal and other residents of Village Husiyapur had gone to the residence of Baatu @ Pushpendra Gupta son of Lalaram on the occasion of Holi Milan, the accused persons, namely,Sanad Singh, Rajwant Singh, Monty Singh, Vivek Singh, residents of Husiyapur, also reached there. It was alleged that Sanad Singh’s licensed single barrel gun was in the hand of Raj Singh, while Sanad Singh himself was having a country made pistol. The accused persons started beating Pushpendra Gupta and when the nephew of the complainant, Amar Singh @ Neelu prevented them from beating, all the 4 accused persons started abusing him and threatened to kill him stating as to why he is speaking. Consequently, Sanad Singh fired at Amar Singh @ Neelu with the country made pistol in his hand, with the intention to kill and the bullet hit him in the stomach. The written report was submitted by the complainant, praying for lodging of the F.I.R. and appropriate action in the matter. Accordingly, the F.I.R. was registered at Police Station Sursa on 18.03.2003 at 20:30 hours under Section 307, 504, 323 IPC and a corresponding entry was made in the GD at Rapat No.24 at 20:30 hours on the same day.
6. The injured Amar Singh @ Neelu was sent to the District Hospital Hardoi for medical examination, which was conducted on the same day at 19:15 p.m. in which the following two injuries were found:-
1- ???? ????? ?? ??? 2.5 ???? x 2 ???? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ?? ????. ????? ????? ??? ?? ?????? ???????? ????? ?? ?? ????? ? ??? ??? ?? ???? ??? ?? ??? ?? ?? ????? ???? ?????? ??? ???
2- ???? ?????? ?? ??? 4 ????. x 3.5 ????. ?? ?? ??? ???- 1 ?? ????? ??? ?? ?????? ??? ?? ????? ?? 1 ??? ?? ??? ?? ??? ??? ??? ?? ?????? ??????? ???? ?? ??? ?????, ??? ??? ??? ????? ?? ???? ???? ?? ???? ????? ???? ??? ?? ??? ??? ?? ???? 100 ?? ????? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ???
7. The Doctor also opined that the injuries were grievous in nature and dangerous to life, however, opinion regarding X ray was given and the injured was kept under observation. The injuries were found to be fresh.
8. In pursuance of the F.I.R., the Investigating Officer was appointed, who conducted the spot inspection, prepared the site plan, and after recording the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and finding prima facie substance in the allegations, submitted a charge sheet under Sections 307, 323 and 504 IPC, on which after taking cognizance, the case was committed to the court of session, where charges were framed against the respondents alongwith Rajawat Singh under Section 307/34, 504 and 323 IPC in Sessions Trial No. 328/2005 and Sessions Trial No.365/2005. The charge was read over to accused persons,which were denied by the accused and they pleaded for trial.
9. In order to prove its case, the prosecution produced P.W.1; the complainant Mangat Ram, P.W.2; Amar Singh @ Neelu, P.W.3; Pushpendra Gupta @ Baatu, P.W.4; Dr. C.K. Rawat and P.W.5; S.I. Baliram Mishra in oral evidence. In documentary evidence, the prosecution placed on record and proved written report as Ex. Ka-1, injury report as Ex.Ka-2, Site Plan as Ex. Ka-3, charge sheet as Ex.Ka-4, check F.I.R. as Ex. Ka-5 and copy of GD as Ex. Ka-6.
10. The statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded, wherein they stated that the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses is false and that the forged F.I.R. has been lodged against them. It was further stated that they have been falsely implicated on account of village party bandi and enmity. The accused Sanad Singh also stated that at the time of incident, a Holi Milan function was being held, where he was present and he would lead evidence in defence in support thereof. Other witnesses also expressed their willingness to depose in defence.
11. In defence D.W.1; Lala Ram Gupta father of P.W.3 ;Baatu @ Pushpendra Gupta(injured), D.W.2; Hari Yadav and D.W.3; Satish Chandra Verma,Clerk in the office of the District Magistrate were examined. In documentary evidence Ex. Kha 1 i.e. a copy of the complaint filed by Lala Ram Gupta before the District Magistrate on 25.03.2003 was placed on record and proved.
12. The learned trial court, after affording opportunity of hearing to learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the evidence and material on record, passed the impugned judgment and order, whereby Sanad Singh was convicted and sentenced with the aforesaid punishment. Against the said judgement, Sanad Singh filed Criminal Appeal No.1438/2006 and the State filed the instant leave to appeal against the order of acquittal of the respondents.
13. The complainant, who appeared as P.W.1, proved the F.I.R. and stated that upon reaching the place of occurrence alongwith his nephew Amar Singh @ Neelu, he saw the accused persons abusing and beating Baatu Singh @ Pushpendra Gupta and when his nephew intervened and prevented them from doing so, Sanad Singh armed with a country made pistol in his hand fired at him, which hit him in his stomach. He also reiterated the same in his cross examination.
14. P.W. 2; the injured Amar Singh @ Neelu, also supported the prosecution case and stated that on the day of Holi, he reached the place of occurrence and saw the accused persons beating Pushpendra Gupta with kicks and fists. When he objected, the accused persons threatened to kill him, stating that he was speaking too much. Thereafter, Sanad Singh fired at him with a country made pistol, which hit him in the stomach and the accused persons ran away from the spot. He further stated that he was medically examined at District Hospital, from where he was referred to the Lucknow Medical College, where he remained admitted for about ten days and after returning from there, he gave his statement to the Investigating Officer. He reiterated the same in his cross examination.
15. P.W3; an eye witness, has also supported the testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and stated that the incident occurred on the day of Holi at about 6:00 p.m. in the evening, when the accused persons, namely, Monty Singh, Sanad Singh, Raju Singh and Vivek Singh came to his door and started hurling abuses. The injured Neelu Singh also came to his door and prevented them from hurling abuses, whereupon, Sanad Singh fired at him, and the bullet hit him in the stomach.
16. The cross examination of all the three witnesses could not extract anything, which may create any doubt about their testimony and the prosecution case.
17. In defence D.W.1; the father of P.W.3 Baatu @ Pushpendra Gupta, Lala Ram Gupta was examined, who tried to create doubt about the incident by stating that his son Baatu @ Pushpendra Gupta was demanding money and quaralleing over the same and he chased him, whereupon he fired on him,which hit Amar Singh @ Neelu in the stomach, whereas he was saved. He further stated that he went to lodge a complaint at the police station, but the Inspector detained him for about 4-5 days and when he was released, he gave a written complaint to the District Magistrate, which was proved by D.W.3, the clerk in the office of the District Magistrate.
18. The learned trial court, after considering the evidence of D.W.1, has recorded a finding that the evidence of D.W.1 is not believable for the reason that on the one hand, D.W.1 stated that when he went to the police station to lodge a complaint, the Inspector kept him in custody for about 4-5 days and on the other hand in the cross examination, he stated that the police personnel had taken him to the police station and that he had not lodged any complaint at the police station. The trial court also recorded a finding that the complaint has been lodged on 25.03.2003, whereas the incident is of 18.03.2003. Similarly the trial court has not found the evidence of D.W.2 believable as it has not been corroborated by any witness, who had given evidence in support of D.W.1.
19. In view of above, it is apparent that the respondents alongwith Sanad Singh had gone to attend Holi Milan function on the date of incident at the residence of P.W.3.P.W.1 has stated that when he reached the place of occurence, the respondents were beating and abusing him, and when P.W.2 Amar Singh @ Neelu prevented them from doing so, Sanad Singh fired at him with a country made pistol. However, no specific overt act has been attributed to the other respondents either in the F.I.R. or in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses with regard to commissioning of any offence by them. The medial evidence of the injured also indicates that only two fire arm injuries, i.e, one entry wound and other exit wound and no other injury was found on the body of the injured.
20. Although the respondents Monty Singh, Rajwant Singh and Vivek Singh have been alleged to have lathis and firearms in their hands, the learned trial court, upon considering the material and evidence on record, has recorded a finding that while presence of such weapons in the hands of the accused may have been suggested, there is no reliable evidence to establish that such weapons were actually used against the nephew of the complainant. The injury sustained by the injured is of country made pistol by Sanad Singh, therefore, even though the respondents Monty Singh, Rajwant Singh and Vivek Singh may have been with Sanad Singh for the purpose of Holi Milan at the house of P.W.3 and D.W.1, but they have no common intention for killing or abusing the injured Amar Singh @ Neelu. The learned trial court also came to the conclusion on the basis of evidence and material on record that there was no enmity of the complainant with Sanad Singh on account of the fact that he alongwith others went to the house of injured for Holi Milan.
21. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Ramesh and Others versus State of Haryana; (2017) 1 SCC 529, has held that before an appeal is entertained on merits, leave of the High Court is to be obtained, which means that normally judgment of acquittal of the trial court is attached a definite value which is not to be ignored by the High Court. In other words, presumption of innocence in favour of an accused gets further fortified or reinforced by an order of acquittal. The relevant paragraphs 24 and 26 are extracted hereinbelow:-
“24. We have duly appreciated the submissions advanced by the counsel for the parties on both sides. No doubt, the High Court was dealing with the appeal against the judgment of the trial court which had acquitted the appellants herein. The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is undoubtedly narrower than the scope of appeal against conviction. Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 confers upon the State a right to prefer an appeal to the High Court against the order of acquittal. At the same time, sub-section (3) thereof mandates that such an appeal is not to be entertained except with the leave of the High Court. Thus, before an appeal is entertained on merits, leave of the High Court is to be obtained which means that normally judgment of acquittal of the trial court is attached a definite value which is not to be ignored by the High Court. In other words, presumption of innocence in favour of an accused gets further fortified or reinforced by an order of acquittal. At the same time, while exercising its appellate power, the High Court is empowered to reappreciate, review and reconsider the evidence before it. However, this exercise is to be undertaken in order to come to an independent conclusion and unless there are substantial and compelling reasons or very strong reasons to differ from the findings of acquittal recorded by the trial court, the High Court, as an appellate court in an appeal against the acquittal, is not supposed to substitute its findings in case the findings recorded by the trial court are equally plausible.
25. x x x x x
26. This legal position is reiterated in Govindaraju v. State (2012) 4 SCC 722 and the following passage therefrom needs to be extracted: (SCC p. 732, paras 12-13)
“12. The legislature in its wisdom, unlike an appeal by an accused in the case of conviction, introduced the concept of leave to appeal in terms of Section 378 CrPC. This is an indication that appeal from acquittal is placed on a somewhat different footing than a normal appeal. But once leave is granted, then there is hardly any difference between a normal appeal and an appeal against acquittal. The concept of leave to appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C. has been introduced as an additional stage between the order of acquittal and consideration of the judgment by the appellate court on merits as in the case of a regular appeal. Sub-section (3) of Section 378 clearly provides that no appeal to the High Court under sub-section (1) or (2) shall be entertained except with the leave of the High Court. This legislative intent of attaching a definite value to the judgment of acquittal cannot be ignored by the courts.”
13. Under the scheme of CrPC, acquittal confers rights on an accused that of a free citizen. A benefit that has accrued to an accused by the judgment of acquittal can be taken away and he can be convicted on appeal, only when the judgment of the trial court is perverse on facts or law. Upon examination of the evidence before it, the appellate court should be fully convinced that the findings returned by the trial court are really erroneous and contrary to the settled principles of criminal law.”
22. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Guru Dutt Pathak Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2021) 6 SCC 116, has held that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court and if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.
23. In view of above and considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal has rightly been passed in accordance with law after considering the evidence and material on record by the learned trial court by a reasoned and speaking order and nothing could be pointed out by the learned A.G.A., on the basis of which a contrary view is possible, therefore, it does not call for any interference by this Court and no case for grant of leave to file the appeal is made out.
24. The application is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed.
(Mrs. Babita Rani,J.) (Rajnish Kumar,J.)
April 3, 2026
Akanksha Sri/-
Â
Â
