Allahabad High Court

Arvind Singh vs State Of U.P. on 17 October, 2025





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:186436
 

 

 
 
 
Reserved on 28.8.2025
 
Delivered on 17.10.2025 
 

 
 
 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3710 of 2020   
 
   Arvind Singh    
 
  .....Appellant(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State of U.P.    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Appellant(s)   
 
:   
 
Mahesh Prasad Yadav, Pramod Kumar Srivastava, Shiv Singh, Shree Ram Pd Gupta   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
G.A.   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 87
 
   
 
 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.

1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 2.11.2020 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, IV/Special Court (E.C. Act), Banda in Sessions Trial No. 71 of 2013 under Section 307, 504, 506 IPC and Sessions Trial No.72 of 2013 under Section 3/25 Arms Act, Police Station-Kotwali Nagar, District Banda whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced under Sections 307 IPC for ten years rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he has to undergo three months additional imprisonment; under Section 3/25 Arms Act for five years rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.10,000/-and in default of payment of fine, he has to undergo one month additional imprisonment.

Factual matrix of case

2. A written complaint Ex. Ka-1 was submitted by P.W.-1 Smt. Rajkumari w/o late Shri Lalu Singh r/o Station Road, Thana Kotwali Nagar, District Banda wherein she stated that her daughter Poonam Singh was married with Arvind Singh r/o Village Laama in year 2005. Arvind harassed and tortured her daughter for demanding dowry, leading her daughter to lodge a complaint at Kotwali Dehat. On July 22, 2012, Poonam visited her house. The next day on July 23, Arvind arrived at informant's house, armed with a country gun, and began threatening and abusing her family members. At about 10:30 am, he fired at informant's brother-in-law (Devar) Pappu Singh. He sustained injuries on his nose and was taken to District Hospital.

3. On basis of complaint, an FIR bearing Case Crime No.410 of 2012 under Section 307 504, 506 IPC was registered against appellant Arvind at about 11:50 am on 23.7.2012. Chik FIR Ex. Ka-3 was prepared by P.W.-5 Constable Rajesh Kumar Singh. Investigation was entrusted to P.W.-8 Inspector D.K. Saini. He recorded statements of witnesses and prepared site plan. Appellant was arrested by P.W.-7 Retd. Inspector Yatindra Singh who recovered weapon of offence at the instance of appellant on 10.8.2012. P.W.-10 Constable Jagdish Singh is witness of the alleged recovery. Recovery of country made gun led to registration of another FIR against appellant on 10-08-2012, bearing Case Crime No.464 of 2012 under Section 25 of Arms Act Police Station-Kotwali Nagar, District Banda. Detail of the said FIR was entered in the G.D. by P.W.-6 Constable Ram Vishal Yadav. This case was investigated by P.W.-9 Inspector Dev Singh, who prepared the site plan of recovery and proved the charge-sheet and prosecution sanction.

4. Injured P.W.-3 Pappu Singh was sent for medical examination at District Hospital Banda on 23.7.2012. He was examined by P.W.-4 Dr. Vineet Sachan at about 11:15 am. Doctor has noted following injuries on person of injured :-

" Gunshot wound 2 x 0.5 cm size, over nose gutter just medial to right eye, margin burn. Fresh bleeding and charring was also present on face."

Doctor has stated injury was caused by firearm shot. He referred the injured to E.N.T. Surgeon. Injured was shifted for treatment and operation at Lalalajpat Hospital, Kanpur. Injury report (Ex. Ka.-2) of P.W.-3 Pappu Singh was proved by this witness.

5. After investigation of both cases was over, charge-sheet against appellant was submitted under Section 307, 504, 506 IPC and 3/25 Arms Act. Charges were framed. Appellant denied the charges and claimed trial. Prosecution examined ten witnesses in support of its case. P.W.-1 Rajkumari deposed that the marriage of Poonam and the appellant was solemnised eight years before the alleged incident. Soon after the marriage, appellant started harassing and torturing her daughter for demand of dowry. Appellant armed with a country made gun, came at her house on the alleged day, and began abusing her family members. Then he fired upon P.W.-3 Pappu who sustained bullet injury on the base of nose. P.W.-2, the wife of the appellant, has testified that she was persistently harassed and tortured by the appellant due to his demands for dowry. Despite her complaint against him, his behaviour remained unchanged. She further stated that, fearing for her life, she sought refuge at her maternal home on July 22, 2012. Appellant also arrived at her maternal home on 23.7.2012 with an intention to kill. He fired upon her uncle Pappu Singh and Pappu sustained bullet injury on the base of his nose. He shot and ran away immediately. P.W.-3 Pappu Singh stated that on July 23, 2012, at approximately 10:30 am, he was sitting in his room when the appellant arrived and began abusing him. The appellant then attempted to drag Poonam away from their home. When he resisted, the appellant pulled out his tamancha and fired on him. Despite the efforts of his relatives and other family members present to apprehend him, the appellant managed to escape.

6. Remaining witnesses P.W.-4 Dr. Vineet Sachan, P.W.-5 Rajesh Kumar Singh, P.W.-6 Constable Ram Vishal Yadav, P.W.-7 Retd. Inspector Yatindra Singh, P.W.-8 Inspector D.K. Saini, P.W.-9 Inspector Dev Singh and P.W.-10 Constable Jagdish Singh are formal prosecution witnesses who have proved the documents prepared by them during investigation. After the examination of prosecution witnesses was over, the statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. He stated that he was falsely implicated in this case by the informant due to acrimonious matrimonial relation between him and his wife Poonam. No evidence in his defence was tendered by the appellant.

Finding of learned trial court

7. The learned trial court thoroughly examined every aspect of the prosecution?s evidence. Considering that the FIR was registered only one hour and twenty minutes after the incident, it ruled that the prompt filing of the FIR, which detailed the incident, dispels any doubt about its being scribed after consultation or deliberation. The court meticulously appreciated the evidence of the injured and eyewitnesses. During cross-examination, P.W.-3 Pappu stated that the accused was on the terrace at the time of the incident, forcing his wife Poonam to accompany him. When this witness tried to stop him, he became enraged and fired at him. He mentioned that he at that moment was speaking to one of his relatives, Narain Singh. The court observed that the presence of Narain Singh was established by the injury report (Ex. Ka-2), which showed that the injured person was taken to the hospital by Narain Singh. Pappu also stated that he suffered a gunshot injury to his nose.

8. The court, after considering the injury report and the statement of the treating doctor, found that the injuries described by the injured person and other witnesses corroborated the injury report of Pappu Singh. It also noted that the injured person had received a gunshot injury to a vital part of his body, making it unlikely that the injuries were fabricated or self-inflicted. Additionally, the court observed that the complainant, as well as other witnesses, remained consistent in their statements recorded before the court. They all corroborated the complainant?s statement that the appellant had come to their house and fired upon Pappu Singh. After reviewing the prosecution?s evidence during the trial, the learned trial court found the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 307 IPC. It also noted that gun used by the appellant was recovered at his instance during investigation and said recovery was proved by P.W.-10 Constable Jagdish Singh. Therefore, the appellant was also found guilty under Section 3/25 Arms Act.

Arguments on behalf of the appellant

9. The learned counsel for the appellant has raised doubts about the promptness of lodging the FIR in this case. The alleged incident occurred at 10:30 am on July 23, 2012, and the FIR was lodged on the same day at 11:50 a.m. However, witnesses have admitted that injured P.W.-3, Pappu Singh, was taken to the hospital for treatment shortly after the incident. If this version is accepted, it becomes highly suspicious that the FIR was lodged just an hour later. In these circumstances, it cannot be ruled out that the FIR was ante time. Furthermore, the appellant has not been imputed with any motive for committing the offence. Additionally, P.W.-2, Poonam Singh, the wife of the appellant, has admitted that she and the appellant had arrived at her maternal home a day before. Given these circumstances, there was no reason for the appellant, who had dropped his wife at her in-laws? house, to return the next day to forcefully take her from her maternal home. The learned counsel for the appellant has also questioned the credibility of the informant, P.W.-1, Rajkumari. She has admitted that she is a widow and lives with P.W.-3 Pappu Singh and also sits with him on his gutka and tea stall. The fact suggests that she lives with injured as a married couple.

10. In continuation of the above arguments, it was submitted that P.W.-1 Rajkumari also admitted that she and her family are poor, while the appellant?s family is much more prosperous. She further admitted that one of her daughters, Neelam, was murdered after her marriage. A criminal case was instituted against Neelam?s husband, but this witness compromised with the accused in that case. Therefore, a witness who has already compromised in a criminal case instituted before this case cannot be considered a reliable witness. Moreover, the injuries sustained by P.W.-3 Pappu Singh were not serious, as injured was discharged within two days of admission. Additionally, the recovery of a bullet from Pappu Singh?s injury makes the prosecution?s story highly improbable. The fact that the bullet was recovered from the wound of injured during his treatment at a private hospital suggests that the injury was fabricated. Lastly, the learned counsel argued that if the circumstances are read together, they only suggest that appellant was falsely implicated in this case. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case, and the witnesses it produced are highly unreliable. The recovery of a country-made gun from appellant after eighteen days is sufficient to demonstrate that it was planted by police personnel to prove their case against appellant. Therefore, appellant, who is innocent and has been held guilty without proper consideration of evidence, is entitled to acquittal.

Arguments on behalf of State

11. Learned AGA submitted that impugned judgment is sound and does not suffer from any infirmity, Learned trial court has thoroughly examined the evidence led before it. The FIR was promptly lodged after the incident, which occurred on July 23, 2012, at approximately 10:30 am. The FIR was lodged after only one hour and twenty minutes, which suggests that there was no consultation or deliberation between the informant and other witnesses before lodging the FIR. Hence, chances of false implication or fabrication do not hold any substance.

12. On the same day, at around 11:15 am, injured P.W.-3 Pappu Singh was examined by P.W.-4 Dr. Vineet Sachan who has stated that injuries were fresh. Injuries sustained by P.W.-3 Pappu Singh corroborate the medical report. His testimony is free from any inconsistencies and encumbrances.

An injured witness is always placed on higher pedestal, and if his statement is free from material discrepancies and inconsistencies, it alone, without corroboration, is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. The testimony of P.W.-3, when corroborated by the injury report, is sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellant.

13. Additionally, P.W.-1 Rajkumari, the mother-in-law of the appellant, and P.W.-2 Poonam Singh, the wife of the appellant, have consistently stated that the appellant, armed with a country-made gun, arrived at their house and shot at P.W.-3 when he resisted his attempt to forcibly drag Poonam Singh. The appellant has not provided any explanation for why his wife and mother-in-law would falsely implicate him. The prompt lodging of the FIR, along with the consistent statements of the prosecution witnesses, which corroborate the injury report of P.W.-3 Pappu Singh, is sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellant. Furthermore, the country-made gun employed by the appellant for the offence was recovered at his instance. Therefore, the findings recorded by the learned trial court are sound, and the conviction of the appellant under Section 307 IPC and 3/25 Arms Act does not deserve any interference.

Conclusion

14. After hearing the learned counsel for both parties, I have perused the material record including the original record of trial court.

15. The learned trial court has thoroughly examined the prosecution?s evidence. Considering the prompt filing of the FIR, it ruled that the incident was not scribed after consultation. The court appreciated the evidence of the injured and eyewitnesses. During cross-examination, P.W.-3 Pappu stated that the accused forced his wife Poonam to accompany him on the terrace. When she objected, he became enraged and fired at Pappu. Pappu also mentioned speaking to his relative, Narain Singh, at that time. Pappu suffered a gunshot injury to his nose. The court, after considering the injury report and the statement of treating doctor?s statement, has came to conclusion that injuries sustained by injured person and testimony of witnesses are in consonance with medical evidence. The court noted that the injuries were inflicted on vital part of the body, and they are unlikely to be fabricated or self-inflicted. This Court, after going through the evidence, is also of the view that complainant and witnesses remained consistent in their statements, corroborating the complainant?s statement that the appellant fired upon Pappu Singh. Hence its findings regarding the guilty of appellant under Section 307 IPC does not require any interference.

16. As far as the conviction Section 3/25 Arms Act is concerned, said conclusion on basis of recovery made after a delay of 17 days is unsuitable. This recovery is highly doubtful, as it is difficult to comprehend that even after 17 days, it would be available for recovery from a place of hiding. Moreover, no FSL Report is there to connect the cartridge with the commission of offence in any manner. It is further contended that after lapse of such a long time, it is highly unlikely that any recovery of weapon of offence would be made. Hence, conviction of accused under Section 3/25 cannot be sustained.

17. At this stage, learned counsel for appellant urged that appellant is first offender and possibility of his reformation cannot be ruled out. He has no criminal history and he was on bail during trial. He is in jail since 02.11.2020 and his total period of incarceration has crossed more than 4 years and 10 months. Hence, appellant may be released on the sentence already undergone. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant has placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Gopal Rana vs. State of U.P. being Criminal Appeal No.6934 of 2010 wherein the Court observed as under in paragraph nos.29 and 30:-

"29. Reliance is also place upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 2433 of 2008 (Munawwar Vs. State of U.P.), wherein this court after sustaining the finding of guilt and consequently conviction of the accused appellant modified the sentence to the period actually undergone by the accused appellant.Reliance is also placed upon the judgments of Supreme Court in the cases of G.V. Siddaramesh v. State of Karnataka 2010 (3) SCC 152 and Hem Chand v. State of Haryana 1994 (6) SCC 727, wherein sentence of life awarded by the courts below was modified by the Supreme Court and reduced the sentence to the period already undergone of over 10 years. to sentence already undergone.

30. Having considered the facts of the present case as also the applicable judgments on the issue as well as the nature of offence committed by the accused appellant and the sentence already undergone by him, we are of the considered view that in the facts of the case, the sentence awarded to the accused appellant be modified and that ends of justice will be served if the appellant be punished with period of sentence already undergone by him. The sentence awarded to the accused-appellant by the court below is modified to the above extent and the appeal is liable to be allowed, in part, to such extent."

18. Considering the submission of learned counsel with regard to quantum of sentence, sentence prescribed under Section 307 IPC was taken into account. An offender under Section 307 IPC can be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and he shall also be liable to fine. In this case, it is apparent that alleged offence was committed by appellant when he was trying to take his wife forcefully from her maternal home. Statements of witnesses also suggest that relationship between appellant and his wife was not cordial at the time of occurrence. However, his wife P.W.-2 Poonam has herself admitted that appellant himself had accompanied her to drop her at her maternal home. She has also denied making any previous complaints against her husband before any authority. From the foregoing circumstances, it appears that some dispute occurred on the date of occurrence which caused the appellant to loose his patience and subsequently he fired at P.W-3 Pappu. It suggests that said incident occurred in a spur of moment.

19. It will be relevant to mention that alleged incident had taken place about 13 years ago. Appellant and P.W.-2 Poonam are husband and wife. Injured P.W.-3 Pappu Singh is uncle-in-law of appellant. Appellant is in jail since 2.11.2020. He has already served four years and ten months of his punishment awarded. Therefore, it will be appropriate in the interest of justice that the sentence of ten years be substituted by the sentence which the appellant has already undergone. Ordered accordingly. Appellant-Arvind Singh shall be released forthwith in this case. However, appellant shall furnish bail bond in compliance of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. to the satisfaction of the Court concerned within two months from today.

20. However, keeping in view that a firearm was employed by appellant to cause injury and victim also suffered firearm injuries due to which he had to undergo treatment, the sentence of fine shall remain unaltered. The amount of fine shall be deposited within a period of three months from receipt of certified copy of the order. In case, the fine is not deposited, the benefit of reduction of sentence shall not accrue to the appellant.

21. For the reasons and discussions held above, the appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and order dated 2.11.2020 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, IV/Special Court (E.C. Act), Banda in Sessions Trial No. 71 of 2013 under Section 307, 504, 506 IPC arising out of Case Crime No.410 of 2012 and Sessions Trial No.72 of 2013 under Section 3/25 Arms Act, arising out of Case Crime No.464 of 2012, Police Station-Kotwali Nagar, District Banda, is modified to the extent indicated above.

22. The trial court's record be remitted back along with copy of this judgment. Compliance report be submitted to this Court at the earliest. Office is directed to keep the compliance report on record.

(Anil Kumar-X,J.)

October 17, 2025