Ram Sagar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

The instant criminal appeal is directed against the order dated 12.01.2026 passed by learned Special Judge,SC/ST Act, Sitapur, in S.S.T. No.167/2025 arising out from FIR/Case Crime No.-433/2024 Under Section 115(2),3(5), 105/3(5),352,351(2),333 Β.Ν.S. i.e. 323, 34, 304, 504, 506, 452 I.P.C. & Section 3(1)da dha 3(2)V SC/ST Act & 3(1)12 SC/ST Act, Police Station Hargaon, District Sitapur parties "State Versus Anuj Pandey & others".

¶13

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that, although the appellant is named in the FIR but during investigation his complicity in the offense was not found and his name was dropped in the charge sheet, along with another co-accused, Anil Yadav, who was not named in the FIR and whose name was surfaced during investigation. According to the prosecution's version, the named accused persons were angered by the construction of a speed breaker by her neighbor, Balak Ram. The accused persons, Anoop Pandey, Kapil Pandey, Arvind Pandey, Anuj Pandey and Ramsagar yadav, came to the house of Motilal and assaulted him with kicks and fists; they also assaulted the informant and threatened her. Her husband suffered serious injuries. In the statement of the informant, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. this fact emerged that the accused persons had trespassed into her house and assaulted her husband on his

¶14

CRLA No. 267 of 2026

¶15

2

¶16

head with a lathi, danda, and banka. He suffered a head injury by banka and he climbed up the wall to save himself but Anuj Pandey and Anoop Pandey had pulled his feet. As a result of which he fell down and his head struck on the road. He became unconscious and died in the hospital on 3/10/2024.

¶17

He next submitted that no specific role has been assigned to the appellant in the offense either during investigation or in the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C or in the sworn testimony of the informant. The independent witnesses, Ram Kumar, Balakram, Nirmala Devi, and Aarti Devi have not assigned any active role of participation of the appellant in the offence. Even in the video footage of the place of occurrence at the time of incident, the police only found him standing there, without speaking to anyone. Independent witnesses, Shivraj and Ramkaran specifically stated in their statements under Section 161 CR.P.C. that Ram Sagar had nothing to do with the incident, and his name and the name of Anil Yadav had been added due to 'Village Partibandi'.

¶18

He next submitted that on the statement of independent witnesses and CCTV footage, the police dropped the name of the appellant and coaccused Anil Yadav. However, the trial court placing reliance on the bald statement of the informant in examination-in-chief, summoned the appellant. However, the prayer for summoning Anil Yadav, who was not named in the FIR, has been refused.

¶19

Per contra, learned A.G.A. submitted that the appellant is named in the FIR. The complainant has stated the involvement of the appellant in the offense and in the evidence before the court, which has not been subjected to cross-examination at the time of disposal of the application under Section 358 BNSS. Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that in the postmortem report, the cause of death has been shown as septicemia due to antimortem injury. The post-mortem report shows three injuries which were found on person of the deceased, out of which, two injuries were on the head and one on the forearm of the deceased.

¶20

The matter requires consideration.

Admit.

CRLA No. 267 of 2026

3

Issue notice to opposite party no.2 which shall be served through CJM returnable at an early date.

¶25

List on 13.03.2026.

¶26

Till the next date of listing no corcercive process shall be adopted against the appellant by the court below. However, trail may proceed against coaccused persons.

¶27

(Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)

¶28

January 30, 2026 dk/

¶29

Digitally signed by :- DEVENDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Sagar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Sagar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandrakesh Mishra and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko and 2 Others

Shudhanshu Upadhayay vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko and 4 Others

Intijar Ahmad @ Bablu and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Chandrakesh Mishra and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko and 2 Others

Vinay Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Saifu @ Ramdas vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Sectt. Lko.