Ramakant Alias Bunty vs State of U.P. and 12 Others

The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.-8, Mathura, vide judgment dated 22.08.2025, passed in Sessions Trial No. 135 of 1996 (State Vs. Anil and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 86 of 1994, under Sections 147, 148, 307/149 and 452 IPC, Police Station-Magorra, DistrictMathura, has acquitted the accused/opposite parties 2 and 3 of the charges framed against them.

¶12

Thus feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, victim/appellantRamakant @ Bunty has approached this Court by filing present appeal under Section 413 BNSS i.e. Criminal Appeal U/s 413 BNSS No. 598 of 2025 (Ramakant @ Bunty Vs. State of U.P. and Others).

¶13

We have heard Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava, the learned counsel for appellant and Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, the learned A.G.A.-Ist along with Mr. Prashant Kumar, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1.

¶14

Perused the record.

¶15

Record shows that an incident is alleged to have taken place in the night of 11/12.10.1994 at around 1-1:30 a.m. in the house of Tarachand Gupta, in which, some inmates of the house are alleged to have sustained injuries on account of act of assault by accused and further the accused are alleged to have committed robbery.

¶16

In view of above, Tarachand Gupta, the head of the family and also an

¶17

NC413 No. 598 of 2025

¶18

2

¶19

inmate of the house, where the incident is alleged to have occurred, submitted a written report (Tehrir) at Police Station-Magorra, DistrictMathura regarding the said occurrence. The same was marked as (Ext-Ka-1).

¶20

PW-6 Mahendra Giri, who was posted at aforementioned police station entered the said police report (Tehrir) in the General Diary of the Police Station, which is (Ext-Ka-3).

¶21

Subsequently, on the basis of aforementioned written report, PW-6 Mahendra Giri prepared the check FIR i.e. (Ext-Ka-2), which was registered as Case Crime No. 86 of 1994, under Sections 147, 148, 307/149 and 452 IPC, Police Station-Magorra, District-Mathura. In the aforesaid FIR, the following persons were nominated as named accused;- (1) Anil, (2) Kripal, (3) Rakesh, (4) Bachchu Singh, (5) Man Singh, (6) Banney Singh, (7) Shyami, (8) Gauri, (9) Vijay, (10) Chandraveer, (11) Rajveer, (12) Udaiveer, (13) Radhey Shyam and (14) Ramveer.

¶22

The prosecution story as unfolded in the FIR has been noted by Court below in paragraph 2 of the impugned judgment. Accordingly, the same is extracted herein below;-

¶23

" 2-अिभयोजन के अनुसार वादी मुकदमा ताराचन्द गुप्ता द्वारा थानाध्यक्ष मगोरार्, िजला मथुरा को एक िलिखत प्राथर्नापत्र प्रदशर् क-1 इस आशय का िदया गया िक "िदनांक 11/12.10.94 समय करीब 1-1.1/2 बजे राित्र वह अपने मकान में रोजाना की तरफ अपने पिरवार के साथ सोया हुआ था, करीब 17-18 बदमाश छत पर होकर उसके मकान में कूदे तथा पिरवारीजन के साथ मारपीट करने लगे तथा बदमाश कह रहे थे िक ताराचन्द कहां है। आज उस साले को िनपटाना है, िजन्दा में आग लगानी है, बदमाश घर के कमरों में उसे तलाश करने लगे, वह मौका पाकर उत्तरी दरवाजे से िनकलकर बाहर भाग गया। बदमाशों ने चाकू मारकर उसके लड़के जगदीश प्रसाद, गोपाल व रमाकान्त उफर् बन्टी तथा लड़की पंकज को बुरी तरह घायल कर िदया। बदमाशों में से उसने व उसके पिरवार वालों ने िबजली की रोशनी में पहचान िलया है, िजनके नाम अिनल, कृपाल व राकेश पुत्रगण सोरन तथा बच्चू िसह, मान िसह व बन्नो िसह पुत्रगण हरी िसह, श्यामी पुत्र महेन्द्र िसह, गौरी व िवजय पुत्रगण िशव लहरी, चन्द्रवीर, राजवीर व उदयवीर िसह पुत्रगण खजान िसह, राधेश्याम पुत्र िगरार्ज एवं रामवीर पुत्र िछद्दा िसह िगरोह गैंग का लीडर है। इस पर अन्य मुकदमा 95 जो कालाबाजारी का चल रहा है। जवाहर पुत्र संतोषी िनवासी-रारह थाना उद्योग नगर, िजला भरतपुर का है, सभी जाट जाित के हैं। एक लगायत 14 बदमाश जाट जाित के हैं तथा रसूलपुर थाना मगोरार् िजला मथुरा के िनवासी हैं। इनके अलावा मोहन िसह पुत्र नबाव कौम जाट ग्राम नेरा थाना बल्देव िजला मथुरा का नामी माना जाना शाितर है तथा िवजेन्द्र पुत्र नामालूम कौम नट िनवासी पुिलस चौकी ओल, मथुरा के अन्तगर्त नट नगला का है। बदमाशों के साथ अज्ञात दो व्यिक्त और थे, िजनको सामने आने पर पहचान सकता है। बदमाशों में से अिनल के हाथ में चाकू तथा कृपाल व राधेश्याम के हाथ में चाकू थे तथा चन्द्रवीर, राजवीर व बच्चू िसह के हाथ में बंदूक तथा िवजेन्द्र नट के हाथ में बंदूक थी, अन्य के हाथों में लाठी-डंडे थे। राधेश्याम, महाराज िसह के घर में से होकर बदमाश उसकी छत पर आये। बदमाश भागते समय एक अटैची, सूटकेस िजसमें लड़की के 14-15 सूट तथा 1200/-रूपया तथा एक बक्शा िजसमें

¶24

NC413 No. 598 of 2025

¶25

3

¶26

8-10 धोती व 2 साड़ी, 1000/-रूपया नकद व 20000/-रूपया पेंट की जेब से तथा एक डैग के साथ डैग में रखे 500/- रूपये बदमाश ले गये। बदमाश जाते समय चेलेंज कर गये हैं िक अबकी बार तो ताराचन्द बच गया, अब नहीं बच पायेगा, यिद बचना चाहता है तो जमीनों के मुकदमा हमसे न लड़े, जमीन हमें दे दे। इन बदमाशों से उसकी पुरानी रंिजश चली आ रही है। बदमाशों का इनका एक बहुत बड़ा िगरोह है। मुकदमा जमीन की रंिजश के कारण यह घटना इन्होंने की है। याचना की गयी िक उसकी िरपोटर् िलखकर कानूनी कायर्वाही की जाये।"

¶27

The genesis of the FIR as noted above is that named accused Anil was armed with a knife, accused Kripal and Radhey Shaym were also armed with knifes, Chandraveer, Rajveer, Bachchu Singh and Vijrendra Nat were armed with guns. The other accused were armed with Lathis. The accused came to the rooftop of the house of first informant through the houses of Radhey Shyam and Maharaj Singh. The accused committed assault upon the inmates of the house and looted cash and clothes. They are further alleged to have extended threat to the first informant Tarachand Gupta of killing him while leaving the house.

¶28

In the occurrence giving rise to present criminal proceedings, 3 persons namely - (1) Jagdish, (2) Pankaj and (3) Ramakant are alleged to have sustained injuries. All the injured were taken to hospital by police personnel i.e. C-83 Prakash Narayan of Police Station-Magorra, District-Mathura. Thereafter, the injured were examined by Dr. R.B. Sharma, who also prepared medico legal certificate/report of each of the injured. Same are on record as Ext-Ka- 15, 16 and 17. For ready reference, the medico legal reports of the aforementioned injured are reproduced herein below;-

¶29

"Details of injured Jagdish"

¶30

Examined Jagdish 24 year S/o Tara Chand R/o-Rasoolpur p.s. Magorra Distt. Mathura on 12.10.2014 At 7:40AM brought by C-83 Prakash Naraya of p.s. Magorra Distt. Mathura. Injries as-

¶31

1-Incised wound 2.5c.m.x1/2 c.m.xMuscle deep area right eye from margin are clean cut.

¶32

2-Incised wound 1.5c.m.x1/2 c.m.xbone deep area bridge of nose. Clot of blood present on removal ozing of blood is there, Nose is swollen bleeding from nose is present.

¶33

3-Incised wound 1.5c.m.x1/2 c.m.xMuscle deep area Rt. Cheek whole of the Rt. Side of face is contused & swollen eye can not be opened.

¶34

NC413 No. 598 of 2025

¶35

4

¶36

4-Two abrasion 1/2c.m.x1/4th c.m.each Rt. Infra orbital margin.

¶37

5-Incised wound 1.5c.m.x1/2 c.m.xMuscle deep lateral aspect of Rt. side upper lip, fresh ozing of blood.

¶38

6-Contused swelling in the face of 12c.m.x10c.m. involving left side of face & left eye ball. The eye cannot be opened.

¶39

Opinion-

¶40

All K.U.O. Injures No-4 Caused by fractual injury No-6 Caused by hard & blunt object, Injury No-1,2,3,5 Caused by sharp edged object.

¶41

Duration-Fresh. Advised G.C. is low. Ad. X-Ray Face & Nose bone injury. Refered to eye surgeon of examination of both eye balls.

¶42

Details of injured Pankaj

¶43

Examined Km. Pankaj 17 year D/o Tara Chand R/o-Rasoolpur p.s. Magorra Distt. Mathura on 12.10.2014 At 8:00AMbrought by C-83 Prakash Naraya of p.s. Magorra Distt. Mathura. Injuries as-

¶44

1-Abrasion 1c.m.x1/2 c.m. on back of left ear pinnareddish.

¶45

2-Abrasion 1c.m.x1/2 c.m. front of left ear pinna, redish.

¶46

3-Contusion Swelling in the area of 6c.m.x5c.m. on angle of jaw left side, reddish.

¶47

4-Contused tender deformed swelling in the area of 6c.m.x5c.m. on back of left hand. Ad. X-Ray.

¶48

5-Lacerated wound 1.5c.m.x1c.m.xMuscle deep on palmar aspect of left ring finger fresh bleeding.

¶49

Opinion-Injury No-4 & 5 K.U.O. Other are simple in nature. All caused by hard & Blunt object & fresh.

¶50

3 Details of injured Ramakant

¶51

Examined Ramakant Gupta 17 year D/o Tara Chand R/o-Rasoolpur p.s. Magorra Distt. Mathura on 12.10.2014 At 8:15AM brought by C-83 Prakash Naraya of p.s. Magorra Distt. Mathura. Injuries as-

¶52

NC413 No. 598 of 2025

¶53

5

¶54

1-C/o pain all around the neck, no any mark of injury seen"

¶55

After aforementioned FIR was lodged, Station House Officer of Police Station-Magorra, District-Mathura namely Shardan Singh (PW-8) was appointed as the Investigating Officer. Accordingly, Investigating Officer first completed the formality of copying written report as well as FIR in the Case Diary. He, thereafter, recorded statement of PW-6 Mahendra Giri, who had made General Diary Entry of the written report (Tehrir) and also the scribe of FIR. Investigating Officer thereafter proceeded to the place of occurrence. He then examined first informant Tarachand Gupta and recorded his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Investigating Officer thereafter recovered plain earth and earth mixed with blood from the place of occurrence. He sealed them in separate boxes and prepared a memo of the same, which is Ext-Ka-8. On the pointing of first informant, Investigating Officer prepared site plan of the place of occurrence, which is Ext-Ka-9. Investigating Officer thereafter collected medico legal reports of the injured, recorded statements of the witnesses of recovery and other witnesses. Since offence complained of is both cognizable and non bailable, therefore, Investigating Officer proceeded for the arrest of accused - Man Singh, Kripal, Bachchu Singh and Banney Singh were arrested and their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded thereafter. Investigating Officer further recovered blood stained clothes of the injured. He, accordingly, prepared memo of same, which are Ext-Ka-10 and Ext-Ka-11 respectively. Thereafter, Investigating Officer recorded statements of independent witnesses. On the basis of above, he came to the conclusion that named accused Vijendra Singh, Mohan Singh, Jawahar, Ramveer, Udaiveer, Chandraveer, Rajveer, Radhey Shaym, Shyami and Vijay have been falsely implicated, as such, their implication in the crime in question is false. In view of the material on record, Investigating Officer converted the case from one under Section 395 IPC to one under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 452 IPC. The recovered articles were sent to the FSL laboratory for chemical analysis. On the basis of material collected by Investigating Officer during course of investigation, he came to the conclusion that occurrence giving rise to present criminal proceedings is prima-facie established and the complicity of named accused Anil, Kripal, Rakesh, Bachchu, Man Singh, Banney Singh and Gauri Shankar @ Gauri in the crime in question is apparent. Accordingly, Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet/police report (Ext-Ka-2) in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., wherein

¶56

NC413 No. 598 of 2025

¶57

6

¶58

aforementioned named accused were charge sheeted under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 452 IPC.

¶59

Upon submission of aforesaid charge sheet/police report, the Jurisdictional Magistrate took cognizance upon same and summoned the accused. However, as offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, therefore, the Jurisdictional Magistrate after complying with the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. i.e. supply of documents relied upon by the prosecution to the accused committed the case to the Court of Sessions as per requirement under Section 209 Cr.P.C., vide committal order dated 15.03.1996.

¶60

As a consequence of above, Sessions Trial No. 135 of 1996 (State Vs. Anil and Others) came to be registered. Concerned Sessions Judge, accordingly, proceeded with the trial. He, therefore, in complinace of Section 228 Cr.P.C., framed charges against charge sheeted accused in the following manner;- accused Rakesh, Banney Singh, Man Singh and Gauri Shankar @ Gauri were charged for an offence under Sections 147, 307/149 and 452 IPC, whereas accused Ranil, Kriopal and Bachchu were charged for an offence under Sections 147, 307/149 and 452 IPC.

¶61

Charge sheeted accused denied the charges so framed against them and demanded trial. Resultantly, the trial procedure commenced.

¶62

Since accused denied the charges so framed against them, therefore, burden fell upon the prosecution to bring home the charges so framed against charge sheeted accused by leading cogent and reliable evidence. Prosecution in discharge of aforesaid burden, adduced the following prosecution witnesses to prove the guilt of accused;-

¶63

(i). PW-1, Tarachand Gupta (first informant).

¶64

(ii). PW-2 Ramakant @ Bunty

¶65

(iii). PW-3 Suman @ Pankaj

¶66

(iv). PW-4 Km. Sunita @ Gudiya

¶67

(v). PW-5 Ashok Kumar

¶68

((vi). PW-6 Mahendra Giri (Police personnel)

¶69

NC413 No. 598 of 2025

¶70

7

¶71

(vii). PW-7 Ashok Kumar (Chief Pharmacist)

¶72

(viii). PW-8 Sardan Singh (Investigating Officer)

¶73

Apart from relying upon aforementioned prosecution witnesses, prosecution also filed documentary evidence, which is tabulated herein under;-

¶74

(i). Ext-Ka-1, Written report (Tehrir) submitted by PW-1 Tarachand Gupta at Police Station-Magorra, District-Mathura.

¶75

(ii). Ext-Ka-2, Check FIR prepared by PW-6 Mahendra Giri and proved by PW-6.

¶76

(iii). Ext-Ka-3, G.D. Entry of the written report (Tehrir) made by PW-6 Mahendra Giri and proved by PW-4.

¶77

(iv). Ext-Ka-4, G.D. Entry No. 17.

¶78

(v). Ext-Ka-5, Medical Report of injured Jagdish.

¶79

(vi). Ext-Ka-6, Medical Report of injured Pankaj.

¶80

(vii). Ext-Ka-7, Medical report of injured Ramakant.

¶81

(viii). Ext-Ka-8, Memo regarding recovery of plain earth and earth mixed with blood prepared by PW-8 SI Shardhan Singh (Investigating Officer) and proved by PW-8.

¶82

(ix). Ext-Ka-9, Site Plan of the place of occurrence prepared by PW-8 SI Shardhan Singh (Investigating Officer) and proved by PW-8.

¶83

(x). Ext-Ka-10, Recovery memo of blood stained clothes of injured Jagdish prepared by PW-8 SI Shardhan Singh (Investigating Officer) and proved by PW-8.

¶84

(xi). Ext-Ka-11, Recovery memo of blood stained clothes of injured Suman @ Pankaj prepared by PW-8 S.IO. Shardhan Singh (Investigating Officer) and proved by PW-8.

¶85

(xii). Ext-Ka-12, Charge sheet/police report prepared by PW-8 S.I. Shardhan Singh (Investigating Officer) and proved by PW-8.

¶86

(xiii). Ext-Ka-13, Form-1 prepared by PW-8 S.I. Shardhan Singh

¶87

NC413 No. 598 of 2025

¶88

8

¶89

(Investigating Officer) for sending the blood stained clothes of injured and plain earth/earth mixed with blood to FSL Laboratory and proved by P.W.8

¶90

(xiv). Ext-Ka-14, ...............

¶91

(xv). Ext-Ka-15, MLC report of injured Jagdish prepared by Dr. R.B. Sharma and proved by PW-7 Ashok Kumar Chief Pharmacist.

¶92

(xvi). Ext-Ka-16. MLC report of injured Suman @ Pankaj prepared by Dr. R.B. Sharma and proved by PW-7 Ashok Kumar Chief Pharmacist.

¶93

(xvii). Ext-Ka-17, MLC report of injured Ramakant prepared by Dr. R.B. Sharma and proved by PW-7 Ashok Kumar Chief Pharmacist.

¶94

After the prosecution evidence was over, all the adverse and incriminating circumstances were disclosed to the accused for their version of the occurrence. The accused denied the questions put to them one by one. They further contended that they have been falsely implicated in the crime in question on account of party politics. Investigating Officer has sided with the first informant and therefore, he has not conducted free and fair investigation. As such, a wrong charge sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer. The first informant (Tarachand Gupta) is a quarrelsome person. He lodged the F.I.R. only to cause inconvenience and to humiliate the neighbours. First informant, as part of pressure tactics to create pressure in the land dispute, has lodged the F.I.R. They are innocent and have not committed the crime in question. They have been falsely implicated due to political rivalry. It was also pleaded on behalf of accused that defence evidence shall also be led.

¶95

It is apposite to mention here that after the deposition of PW-1 (Tarachand Gupta) was recorded, prosecution (first informant) filed an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., which was registered as Paper No. 154-Kha. It was pleaded on behalf of prosecution that since complicity of exculpated accused has also emerged in the crime in question as per the deposition of PW-1, therefore, they be also summoned to face trial. Aforesaid application came to be allowed by Court below, vide order dated 16.03.2023. Consequently, the exculpated accused i.e. Vijay, Chandraveer, Rajveer, Radhey Shyam, Shyamveer, Jawahar, Mohan Singh and Vijendra were summoned by Court below to stand their trial.

¶96

The exculpated accused named above thereafter appeared before Court

¶97

NC413 No. 598 of 2025

¶98

9

¶99

below and charges were also framed against them by Court below, vide framing of charge order dated 25.10.2023. All the exculpated accused, who were summoned subsequently were charged for an offence under Section 147, 307/149 and 452 IPC.

¶100

It is relevant to mention here that charge sheeted accused Udaiveer and Ramveer died during the course of trial and therefore, trial of aforesaid accused was abated by Court below, vide order dated 29.07.2023. Accused Bachchu Singh, Man Singh and Vijendra also died during the course of trial and their trial was abated by Court below, vide order dated 20.08.2025.

¶101

On behalf of prosecution, it was contended before Court below that on 11/12.10.1999, at around 1-1:30 a.m. when the first informant along with his family was fast asleep in his house, the accused entered the house and thereafter, assaulted the sons of first informant namely Jagdish Prasad, Gopal, Ramakant @ Bunty, and his daughter-Pankaj with a knife but with an intention to kill them. Aforementioned inmates of the house were consequently injured on account of the act of assault made by accused PW8, Investigating Officer duly investigated the said fact and has thereafter submitted the charge sheet. Investigating Officer in his deposition has proved the place of occurrence and also the charge sheet. As such, the charges framed against charge sheeted accused are proved beyond doubt. Consequently, the accused are liable to be convicted for the criminality (offence) committed by them.

¶102

On the other hand, on behalf of accused, it was urged that they have been falsely implicated in the crime in question on account of rivalry. They have not committed any crime. There are contradictions in the depositions of prosecution witnesses. As such, they are liable to be acquitted of the charges framed against them.

¶103

Court below, thereafter examined and evaluated the prosecution case, the defence raised on behalf of accused in proof of their innocence in the light of evidence on record. It, accordingly, evaluated the statement-in-chief and also the examination-in-chief of the prosecution witnesses and the various circumstances of the case, which emerged during the course of investigation to find out as to how far the prosecution has been successful to prove the guilt of accused, if any, beyond reasonable doubt.

¶104

Having undertaken the aforesaid exercise, Court below came to the

¶105

NC413 No. 598 of 2025

¶106

10

¶107

conclusion that prosecution case is not established beyond reasonable doubt nor the prosecution witnesses of fact have supported the prosecution story, which the prosecution set out to prove. Court below further referred to various other circumstances to point out the inherent fallacy in the prosecution case. Having done so ultimately Court below, vide judgment dated 22.08.2025, acquitted the accused of the charges framed against them on the following grounds/reasons;-

¶108

(i). PW-1 (Tarachand Gupta) is not an eye witness of the occurrence. According to this witness, he had witnessed the occurrence by hiding himself. However, as per the depositions of other prosecution witnesses of fact, this witness is said to have sneaked out of the house before the occurrence.As such, this witness cannot be treated as an eye- witness of the occurrence. In view of above, his deposition shall not throw any light on the manner of occurrence.

¶109

(ii). PW-2 (Ramakant @ Bunty), who is an injured witness, in his statementin-chief has supported the FIR by stating that named accused Udaiveer, Rajveer, Gauri Shankar @ Gauri, Vijay and Chandraveer along with 17 to 18 persons descended in the courtyard (Angan) of the house. However, he could recognize only the abovementioned named accused but not others. However, this witness in his examination-in-chief has resiled from his statement-in-chief. He has now stated that he had neither seen the accused committing the crime in question nor they entered inside the house. No scuffle took place between the aforesaid accused and his Late father (Tarachand Gupta) nor the named accused extended any threat of killing nor committed any dacoity. As such, this witness is not an eye witness of the occurrence and his deposition is irrelevant for deciding the guilt of accused, if any.

¶110

(iii). PW-3 Suman @ Pankaj had supported the prosecution story in his statement-in-chief, but has ultimately departed from the same in her examination-in-chief. She has shown complete ignorance about the occurrence in question. As such, the deposition of this witness is also not relevant for deciding the guilt of accused, if any.

¶111

(iv). PW-4 (Sunita) had also supported the prosecution in her statement-inchief but in her cross examination, she has not supported the prosecution case. Her examination-in-chief is similar to the examination-in-chief of PW-

¶112

NC413 No. 598 of 2025

¶113

11

¶114

2 Ramakant @ Bunty. However, she has additionally stated that no offence was committed by accused Shyamveer.

¶115

(v). PW-5 (Ashok Kumar) is not an eye witness of occurrence. He had reached the place of occurrence after the occurrence had taken place. However, this witness has completely exculpated the accused Shyamveer in the crime in question.

¶116

After recording a finding regarding the true import of the prosecution witnesses, Court below then discussed about the complicity of accused Anil, Rakesh, Banney Signh, Mohan, Vijendra, Jawahar, Shyamveer, Kripal, Radhey Shyam, Bachchu and Man Singh.

¶117

Court below examined the depositions of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, PW-5, PW-6 and PW-7. Upon evaluation of the deposition of the prosecution witnesses regarding the complicity of accused in the crime in question, it came to the conclusion that the Investigating Officer on the basis of statements of independent witnesses exculpated the accused Vijendra Singh, Mohan Singh, Jawahar, Ramveer, Udaiveer, Chandraveer, Rajveer, Radhey Shyam, Shyami and Vijay as the said accused were falsely implicated on account of land dispute. The prosecution witnesses of fact have not implicated the accused Anil Kumar, Bachchu, Jawahar, Man Singh, Shyamveer, Radhey Shaym, Kripal, Rakesh, Banney Singh, Mohan Singh and Vijendra. To the contrary, only the accused Chandraveer, Rajveer, Gauri Shankar, Vijay, Udaiveer and Ramveer are alleged to have committed the crime in question. On the above premise, Court below concluded that accused are entitled to the benefit of doubt.

¶118

Subsequent to above, Court below examined the complicity of accused Rajveer, Chandraveer, Gauri, Vijay and deceased Udaiveer and Ramveer as their complicity in the crime in question had emerged as per depositions of PW-2 to PW-4. Upon evaluation of the depositions of PW-1, PW-3, PW-4 and PW-8, Court below came to the conclusion that such accused, whose complicity was not found established during the course of investigation, are alleged to have committed the crime in question as per the depositions of prosecution witnesses of fact. This unusual circumstance creates a strong suspicion in the prosecution case.

¶119

Thereafter, Court below has pointed out the various suspicious circumstances regarding the accused, whose complicity is alleged in the crime in question by the prosecution witnesses of fact.

¶120

Ultimately, Court below, vide judgment dated 22.08.2025, acquitted the accused of the charges framed against them.

¶121

Thus feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated 22.08.2025 passed by

¶122

NC413 No. 598 of 2025

¶123

12

¶124

Court below i.e. Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.-8, Mathura, Ramakant @ Bunty, who is a victim as he is an injured, has now approached this Court by means of present appeal under Section 413 BNSS.

¶125

Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava, the learned counsel for appellant in challenge to the impugned judgment contends that the same is unsustainable in law and fact and therefore, same is liable to be set aside by this Court. According to the learned counsel for appellant, present case is a case of direct evidence. As such, Court below was only required to consider whether the presence of prosecution witnesses of fact at the time and place of occurrence is established beyond doubt and secondly, the deposition of eye witnesses inspires confidence and therefore, makes them worthy of acceptance and reliance.

¶126

Elaborating his aforesaid submission, the learned counsel for appellant contends that the occurrence in question had taken place in the house of first informant (Tarachand Gupta). The occurrence had taken place at around 1- 1:30 a.m. in the dead of night. Therefore, the presence of inmates of the house, who are no one else but the sons and daughter of first informant, at the time and place of occurrence, which is 1-1:30 a.m. is very natural. In view of above, there cannot be any issue regarding the presence of the injured eye witness/other witness at the time and place of occurrence. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for appellant that PW-1 is the first informant, PW-2 Ramakant, PW-3 Suman @ Pankaj and PW-4 Km. Sumita @ Gudia are the sons and daughter of PW-1 Tarachand Gupta and also injured eye witnesses. At this juncture, the learned learned counsel for appellant referred to the judgment of Supreme Court in Manjeet Singh Vs. State of Haryana and Others, 2021 SCC Online SC 632, and on basis thereof, he urged that the Apex Court in aforementioned judgment has held in clear and categorical terms that the deposition of an injured eye witness has greater evidentiary value than an ordinary witness and the same can be discarded only on compelling reasons. No such compelling reason emerged on record so as to discard the depositions of aforementioned witnesses. As such, Court below has erred in law in discarding the depositions of injured eye witnesses. It is also contended by the learned counsel for appellant that Court below has disbelieved the prosecution case not by recording a finding that the prosecution case is not proved in evidence but by referring to the various circumstances deduced by Court below from the record and on basis thereof, it came to the conclusion that the prosecution case is doubtful and

¶127

NC413 No. 598 of 2025

¶128

13

¶129

therefore, the same is unworthy of belief. On the edifice of aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel for appellant contends that Court below has erred in law in acquitting the accused by extending the benefit of doubt in their favour. The same is manifestly illegal. As such, the impugned judgment passed by Court below is liable to be set aside by this Court and the appeal be allowed.

¶130

Per contra, Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, the learned A.G.A.-Ist on behalf of State-opposite party-1 has vehemently opposed the present appeal. Learned A.G.A. submits that the judgment rendered by Court below and impugned in present appeal is based upon due appreciation of evidence on record. As such, the same is not perverse. Court below has neither ignored any material piece of evidence nor the Court below has misconstrued any evidence. The conclusion drawn by Court below is a logical conclusion, which has been deduced upon due evaluation and examination of the material on record. Present case is a case of direct evidence as there is an eye witnesses account of the occurrence in question. PW-2 Ramakant, PW-3 Suman @ Pankaj, PW-4 Km. Sunita @ Gudia are eye witnesses of the occurrence. These witnesses in their examination-in-chief have not supported the prosecution case and the manner of occurrence. PW-1 was not present at the time of occurrence, which fact has been stated by the other prosecution witness as he went out of the house at the time of occurrence. The other prosecution witnesses, who have stated the above fact were not got re-called for reexamination on the said issue by the prosecution itself. PW-5 Ashok Kumar arrived at the place of occurrence after the occurrence. Therefore his deposition is irrelevant qua the manner of occurrence. As such, the prosecution has failed to establish the occurrence in question or rather the very story which it set out to prove by it's own evidence. Apart from above, Court below has referred to the various adverse circumstances, which came to light during the course of trial, to point out the inherent fallacy in the prosecution case. It is on the basis of above that Court below has acquitted the accused of the charges framed against them. In view of above, no illegality can be attached to the impugned judgment passed by Court below. The grounds raised by the learned counsel for appellant in challenge to the impugned judgment passed by Court below are merely fanciful grounds, which are devoid of any substance. As such, no good ground has emerged to set aside the impugned judgment passed by Court below. On the above conspectus, the learned A.G.A. submits that no interference is warranted by

¶131

NC413 No. 598 of 2025

¶132

14

¶133

this Court in present appeal and therefore, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed by this Court.

¶134

Having heard the learned counsel for appellant, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the only question which arises for consideration in present appeal is; Whether the prosecution witnesses of fact have proved the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt.

¶135

Prosecution in discharge of it's burden to prove the prosecution case had adduced 8 prosecution witnesses. Out of the 8 prosecution witnesses of fact, only 5 prosecution witnesses are witnesses of fact. It is the deposition of these 5 prosecution witnesses, which has material bearing on the prosecution case. PW-1 Tarachand Gupta is the first informant. This witness in his deposition before Court below has supported the prosecution case. However, the other prosecution witnesses of fact have clearly deposed that since PW-1 had sneaked out of the house, therefore, he did not witness the occurrence. The aforesaid witness was not got recalled by the prosecution for reexamination on the said issue. PW-2 Ramakant is the son of first informant Tarachand Gupta and also an injured witness. PW-3 Suman @ Pankaj is the daughter of first informant and also an injured witness. Similarly PW-4 Km. Sunita @ Gudia is the daughter of first informant Tarachand Gutpa. All the aforesaid prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution story in their examination-in-chief. Thus what can be deduced from above is that the sons and daughter of first informant have themselves not supported the prosecution story. PW-5 Ashok Kumar is said to have arrived at the spot after the occurrence was over. As such, his deposition is irrelevant for deciding the guilt of accused. Moreover, upon perusal of the impugned judgment, we find that Court below has pointed out various circumstances adverse to the prosecution case with reference to the facts of the case. The prosecution miserably failed to explain the same. It is on the basis of above that Court below concluded that since prosecution has failed to establish it's case beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the accused are entitled to the benefit of doubt. On the above findings and reasoning, Court below has acquitted the accused of the charges framed against them.

¶136

We, therefore, raised a pointed query to the learned counsel for appellant as to how in the light of facts noted above i.e. the prosecution witnesses of fact have themselves not supported the prosecution story, and the fallacy in

¶137

NC413 No. 598 of 2025

¶138

15

¶139

the prosecution case with reference to various circumstances deduced by Court below what illegality has been committed by Court below in acquitting the accused by disbelieving the prosecution case and further by granting the benefit of doubt to accused. We further pointed to the learned counsel for appellant that the benefit of doubt can be given only to an accused.

¶140

In reply to above, the learned counsel for appellant contended that since PW-1 has fully supported the prosecution case, therefore, Court below has erred in law in acquitting the accused. The submission so raised by the learned counsel for appellant has been made only to the rejected. PW-2, PW3 and PW-4 are the sons and daughters of PW-1 Tarachand Gutpa. PW-2 and PW-3 are an injured witness also. All the aforesaid prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. What is thus evident is that the injured eye witnesses have themselves not supported the prosecution case. At this juncture, we may refer to the judgement of Supreme Court in the Case of Manjeet Singh (Supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for appellant, wherein it has been held that the deposition of an injured eye witness has lighter evidentiary value than an ordinary witness, therefore, his deposition can be ignored only on the compelling grounds. Paragraph 20 of the aforesaid report is relevant for the controversy in hand. Accordingly, the same is reproduced herein below;-

¶141

"20. Now thereafter when in the examination-in-chief the appellant herein — victim — injured eyewitness has specifically named the private respondents herein with specific role attributed to them, the learned trial court as well as the High Court ought to have summoned the private respondents herein to face the trial. At this stage it is required to be noted that so far as the appellant herein is concerned he is an injured eyewitness. As observed by this Court in State of M.P. v. Mansingh [State of M.P. v. Mansingh, (2003) 10 SCC 414 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 390] (para 9); Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P. [Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P., (2010) 10 SCC 259 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1262] ; State of U.P. v. Naresh [State of U.P. v. Naresh, (2011) 4 SCC 324 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 216] , the evidence of an injured eyewitness has greater evidential value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly. As observed hereinabove while exercising the powers under Section 319CrPC the court has not to wait till the cross-examination and on the basis of the examination-in-chief of a witness if a case is made out, a

¶142

NC413 No. 598 of 2025

¶143

16

¶144

person can be summoned to face the trial under Section 319CrPC."

¶145

In the present case, the injured eye witnesses have themselves not supported the prosecution case and PW-1 has not been found to be an eye witness of the occurrence. Irrespective of above, Court below has also examined the prosecution evidence with reference to varied circumstances as is evident from the discussions occurring at pages 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27 of the impugned judgment that the prosecution case is doubtful as there is strong suspicion. The conclusion drawn by Court below that the prosecution has failed to establish it's case beyond doubt is a logical conclusion duly derived from the record.

¶146

In view of aforesaid factual position, it cannot be conclusively concluded that only the view consistent with the guilt of accused can be drawn as per the material on record.As such, no illegality has been committed by Court below in disbelieving the prosecution case and acquitting the accused of the charges framed against them.

¶147

As a result, the present appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed.

¶148

It is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶149

November 21, 2025 Vinay

¶150

(Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.)

¶151

Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ramakant Alias Bunty v. State of U.P. and 12 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramakant Alias Bunty v. State of U.P. and 12 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Reshma and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sanjiv Kushwaha and Another vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Arvind and Another vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Smt. Indu Devi vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sahoon @ Tugal and 5 Others vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 2 Others

Lokesh Nyayi Advocate vs State of U.P. and 7 Others