Allahabad High Court
Ravi Kant Yadav vs State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ... on 17 October, 2025
Author: Rajnish Kumar
Bench: Rajnish Kumar, Rajeev Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:65396-DB
CRIMINAL APPEAL U/S 372 Cr.P.C. No. - 131 of 2024
Ravi Kant Yadav
..Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Ors.
..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
Anuj Pandey, Anand Kumar Yadav, Nagendra Mohan, Sushil Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
G.A., Manoj Kumar Mishra, Utkarsh Misra
and
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:65396-DB
Government Appeal No. 1111 of 2021
State of U.P.
..Appellant(s)
Versus
Pramod Singh
..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
Govt. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Dinesh Narayan Pandey, Manoj Kumar Mishra, Rahul Srivastava, Salil Kumar Srivastava, Vijay Pratap Singh
Reserved on:- 27.08.2025
Pronounced on:- 17.10.2025
Court No. - 10
HONBLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J.
HONBLE RAJEEV SINGH, J.
(Per: Rajeev Singh, J.)
1. Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant/complainant- Ravi Kant Yadav, Sri Umesh Kumar Verma, learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent- Pramod Singh and Sri Salil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent- Vikas Singh.
2. The Criminal Appeal u/s 372 Cr.P.C. No. 131 of 2024 (Ravi Kant Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.) has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 10.12.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, E.C. Act, Faizabad, acquitting the accused/respondents nos.2 and 3 from the charges punishable under Sections 307 or 307/34, 504, 506 I.P.C. in S.T. No. 192 of 2011 and S.T. No. 07 of 2008 respectively, arising out of Case Crime No. 715 of 2006, Police Station- Kotwali Ayodhya, District- Ayodhya/Faizabad.
The Government Appeal No. 1111 of 2021 under Section 378 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the State challenging the aforesaid order dated 10.12.2012 (supra).
3. Sri Sushil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant/complainant- Ravi Kant Yadav has submitted that learned trial Court acquitted the assailants merely on the basis of presumption while ignoring the testimony of the injured witness as well as other two eye-witnesses and also ignoring the vast criminal history of Vikas Singh.
It has further been submitted by Sri Sushil Kumar Singh that as per the prosecution case, the injury was caused to the injured from his left side, but it has wrongly been mentioned in the discharge summary of King George's Medical University (K.G.M.U.), Lucknow that the entry wound is caused from the right side.
Relying on the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the cases of Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Haryana reported in 2000 CRI. L.J. 2212, State of Punjab Vs. Pohla Singh and Anr. reported in 2003 CRI. L.J. 5010, and Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade and Anr. Vs. State of Maharasthra reported in 1973 CRI. L.J. 1783, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellate Court has full power to review the evidence and reverse the acquittal. Further, in support of his submissions, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the decision of Privy Council in the case of Sheo Swarup Vs. King Emperor reported in AIR 1934 Privy Council 227(1).
Learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that Vikas Singh is a history-sheeter, who has criminal history of 22 cases and after lodging of the impugned F.I.R., his involvement was also found in six cases and he is on bail.
4. Sri Umesh Verma, learned A.G.A. has submitted that in the present case, the entire prosecution evidence cannot be discredited merely on the basis of contradiction in the medico legal report.
Relying on the judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the cases of Dr. Shailu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2008 CRI. L.J. 686, Rajendra alias Rajappa and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2021) 2 SCC (Cri.) 798, Achhar Singh Vs. State of Himanchal Pradesh reported in (2021) 5 SCC 543, and Jagdish Narain and Anr. Vs. State of U.P. reported in 1996 SCC (Cri.) 565, learned A.G.A. has requested for setting aside the impugned judgment of learned trial Court by convicting the accused persons.
5. Sri Salil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Vikas Singh has vehemently opposed the arguments of the appellant's counsel and has submitted that there is no illegality in the order passed by learned trial Court. He has tried to show the major contradictions having been found in the statements of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 and the contents of medico legal report.
Sri Srivastava has further submitted that as per the prosecution case, the assailants came from left side of the injured and opened fire on him when they were on moving motorcycles, but the medico legal report prepared in the K.G.M.U. reveals that the neck injury was caused to the injured from a short distance.
Relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Krishnegowda and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2017) 13 SCC 98, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that it is undisputed that an appellate Court must bear in mind 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 and secondly, the accused, having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court. It has, thus, been submitted that these appeals are liable to be dismissed.
6. The facts, as per the prosecution case, are that on 28.05.2006, P.W.-1, namely, Rama Kant Yadav (informant) had given written complaint at the police station at 12:45 pm alleging that during the election of Block Pramukh, Vikas Singh s/o Surya Pratap Singh alias Bhutani and his accomplices tried to abduct members of Block Development Council for creating favourable results in the election of Senior Block Pramukh, on account of which, the F.I.R. was lodged. Further allegations are that Vikas Singh was trying to make pressure on the informant for not giving evidence by giving threat to eliminate him and his family members and due to said annoyance, on 28.05.2006 at 11:15 am, when informant, P.W-2, namely, Ravi Kant Yadav and Kanik Ram s/o Sita Ram were standing and talking in front of the door of the house, suddenly Vikas Singh and Pramod Singh, who were sitting alongwith two others on two motorcycles, i.e., Pulsar and Discover, came from the direction of Pura Bazaar and while giving threat of killing, Vikas Singh and Pramod Singh started firing from their respective weapons. Thereafter, the accused persons went towards the city after the bullet was hit in the neck of the brother of the informant, due to which, he fell down in critical condition.
On the said complaint, the F.I.R. No. 715 of 2006 under Sections 307, 504, 506 I.P.C. was lodged on 28.05.2006 at 12:45 pm at Police Station- Kotwali Ayodhya. After lodging of the F.I.R., Investigating Officer inspected the spot, prepared the site plan, which was proved as Exhibit Ka-9. Thereafter, on his transfer, the investigation was assigned to Sub Inspector- Sumeshwar Singh and later on, it was further assigned to Sub Inspector- Mahadev Chauhan under the order of D.I.G., Faizabad. Mahadev Chauhan prepared the charge-sheet against Pramod Singh under Sections 307, 504, 506 I.P.C., which was proved as Exhibit Ka-6 and was submitted to the Court concerned, on which, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Session. The charge-sheet no. 135-A/08 dated 11.01.2008 was also submitted by Sub Inspector- Parshuram Singh against Vikas Singh and the same was also committed to the Court of Session by learned Magistrate. Thereafter, charges were framed in both the cases, but the private respondents denied the said charges and requested for trial.
7. On perusal of the record, it is apparent that the prosecution has placed nine witnesses and one Court witness was called in S.T. No. 07 of 2008 (State Vs. Pramod Singh). All these witnesses were again re-examined in S.T. No. 192 of 2011 (State of U.P. Vs. Vikas Singh) except the Court witness- Sub Inspector, namely, Radhey Shyam, and two other witness, i.e., P.W.-10, namely, Pankaj Singh (Sub Inspector) and P.W.-11, namely, Parsuram Singh (Sub Inspector) were also examined. The statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C..
The accused- Pramod Singh categorically denied the prosecution case stating that they were implicated only due to political enmity and false evidence was given by the witnesses. In his defense, two witnesses, namely, Krishna Pratap Singh (D.W.-1) and Raj Bahadur Singh (D.W.-2) were produced by Pramod Singh. On the other hand, Vikas Singh had produced D.W.-1, namely, Ajit Pratap Singh and D.W-2, namely, Amar Bahadur in his defense. The details of the witnesses and documentary evidence are as under:-
S.N.
S.N. Description of Papers
Exhibits & Statement
(i)
First Information Reports
1.
First Information Report (in S.T. No. 07/2008)
प्रदर्श क-7
2.
First Information Report (in S.T. No. 192/2011)
प्रदर्श क-8
(ii)
Injury Reports
1)
(a)
Injury Report
प्रदर्श क-2
(b)
Injury Report
प्रदर्श क-10
2)
(a)
Injury Report
प्रदर्श क-2
(b)
Injury Report
प्रदर्श क-5
(iii)
Bed Head Ticket
1.
Bed Head Tickets (in S.T. No. 07/08)
प्रदर्श क-4
2.
Bed Head Tickets (in S.T. No. 192/11)
प्रदर्श क-3
(i)
Fard Kurki
1.
Fard Kurki (in S.T. No. 07/08)
प्रदर्श क-12
2.
Fard Kurki (in S.T. No. 192/11)
प्रदर्श क-10
(B)
Papers relating to Magisterial Inquiry
1.
Committal
2.
Committal
(C)
Papers relating to proceedings before the Session Court
(i)
Charge
1.
Charge
2.
Charge
(ii)
(A) Statement of Witnesses (In S.T. No. 07/08)
1.
Rama Kant Yadav
P.W.-1
2.
Ravi Kant Yadav
P.W.-2
3.
R.K. Lal
P.W.-3
4.
Dr. A.K. Srivastava
P.W.-4
5.
Si Sumeshwar Singh
P.W.-5
6.
Dr Veerendra Verma
P.W.-6
7.
Si Mahadev Chauhan
P.W.-7
8.
Si Krishna Bihari Tiwari
P.W.-8
9.
SI Jitendra Kumar Singh
P.W.-9
10.
SI Radhey Shyam
C.P.W.-1
11.
Krishna Pratap Singh
D.W.-1
12.
Raj Bahadur Singh
D.W.-2
(B) Statement of Witnesses (In S.T. No. 192/11)
1.
Rama Kant Yadav
P.W.-1
2.
Ravi Kant Yadav
P.W.-2
3.
Dr Veerendra Verma
P.W.-3
4.
Dr. A.K. Srivastava
P.W.-4
5.
R.K. Lal
P.W.-5
6.
Si Sumeshwar Singh
P.W.-6
7.
SI Jitendra Kumar Singh
P.W.-7
8.
Si Mahadev Chauhan
P.W.-8
9.
Si Krishna Bihari Tiwari
P.W.-9
10.
SI Pankaj Singh
P.W.-10
11.
SI Parshuram Singh
P.W.-11
12.
Ajit Pratap Singh
D.W.-1
13.
Amar Bahadur Singh
D.W.-2
(iii) Examination of accused and his written statement, if any (Statement u/s 313)
1.
Pramod Singh
2.
Additional Statement of Pramod Singh dt. 23-5-12
3.
Additional Statement of Pramod Singh dt. 19-7-12
4.
Vikas Singh
(iv)
Important exhibits
Written Report
प्रदर्श क-1
Site Plan
Site Plan (In S.T. No. 07/08)
प्रदर्श क-9
Site Plan (In S.T.No. 192/11)
प्रदर्श क-6
Report No. 31 (S.T. No. 07/08)
प्रदर्श क-11
8. The P.W.-1, namely, Rama Kant Yadav (informant of the impugned F.I.R.) has deposed that wife of Vikas Singh was also contesting the election of Block Pramukh against him and when he was going alongwith the B.D.C. members to take identity card from Tehsil- Sadar, Faizabad, fire was opened on him by Vikas Singh with the intention to abduct them, as a result, F.I.R. was lodged by his driver- Yogendra Singh against Vikas Singh, in which, he was a witness. Due to the said complaint, Vikas Singh was arrested. Later on, Vikas Singh started making pressure on him for not giving evidence and threatened him that all his family members would be eliminated. He also stated that both Pramod and Vikas are close friends. On the date of incident, the informant alongwith his brother- Ravi Kant and uncle- Kanik Ram was standing in front of his house, at the same time, two motorcycles came from the side of Pura Bazaar, which were being driven by unknown persons having Vikas Singh and Pramod Singh as pillion riders. As Vikas Singh told his accomplices to kill the informant and others, Vikas Singh and Pramod Singh started firing with their respective weapon. In the incident of firing, one bullet hit near the ear of his brother and passed across the neck, due to which, his brother fell down and the accused persons fled away. The injured was immediately brought to District Hospital- Faizabad. In the hospital, the informant drafted a complaint and the same was given to the police.
9. The P.W.-2, namely, Ravikant Yadav was medically examined at District Hospital- Faizabad and as per his medico legal report, following two injuries were found:
(i) Gun shot of entry (fire-arm) on left side of neck 15 cm X 1.5 cm X cavity deep, 10 cm below left mastoid, bleeding present, blackening and tattooing present around the wound of entry;
(ii) Gun shot wound of exit on the right side of the neck just below right ear lobule measuring 4cm X 2 cm X cavity deep, right ear lobule is teared and split, bleeding present.
10. Dr. A.K. Srivastava, who was posted as Emergency Medical Officer in District Hospital- Faizabad, was examined as P.W.-4 who proved the medico legal examination report of the injured. Thereafter, the injured was shifted to K.G.M.U. where he was under treatment and then get discharged on 13.06.2006. In the discharge summary, injuries of Ravikant Yadav are mentioned, which were found at the time of admission. Relevant part of this injury report is as under:-
"The above mentioned patient was admitted to ENT department, KGMU at 6:35 PM on 28/5/06 and various injuries at the time of admission are described below:
A roundable wound of 2 cm diameter present at right side of neck. Site of wound was 2.0 cm behind the angle of mandible (right side) and 3.5 cm below the top of right mastoid. Margins of wound were inverted and ragged blackening, tattooing and charring present around the wound. Right ear lobule lacerated (entry wound)
A rounded wound of 1.5 cm diameter present on left side of neck. Site of wound was 5 cm postero-inferior to angle of mandible (left side), 5 cm above the midpoint of left clavicle and 8.5 cm below the tip of left mastoid. No blackening, tattooing or charring around the wound.
Margins of wound-everted (exit wound)
There was no bleeding from wound sites.
There was no orthopaedic or neurological injuries to the patient.
X-ray was not advised by orthopaedics or neurology specialist Hence, X-ray of the Pi was not done."
11. The P.W.-6, namely, Dr. Virendra Verma, Assistant Professor, has proved the bedhead ticket and the discharge report, in which, injury was mentioned which shows that the entry wound is on the right side of the neck where blackening, tattooing and charring were present.
12. The injured witness, namely, Ravi Kant Yadav (P.W.-2), in his deposition, has stated that he was standing towards the west direction and was having conversation with Rama Kant and uncle- Kanik Ram, suddenly, he received a gunshot on his ear and neck, due to which, he immediately fell down and he could not see the assailant. Later on, when he regained his consciousness, he was informed that Vikas Singh and Pramod Singh had shot him and as his ear drum got damaged, he was referred from District Hospital- Faizabad to Lucknow where he was under treatment. His statement was recorded when he came back from Lucknow.
13. The site plan was prepared by Sub Inspector- Jitendra Kumar Singh and the same was proved as Exhibit Ka-9. The site plan also shows that the injury was caused to the injured from his left side.
14. The P.W.-2 was re-examined in S.T. No. 192 of 2011 (State vs. Vikas Singh) and in his cross examination, he stated that distance between his house and road is about 15-20 feet. He also stated that when he saw the assailants, they were about 10-15 feet away from them, and when they started firing, the distance of firing was about 10-15 feet.
15. Having considered the cross examination of the witnesses and going through the record including the medico legal report, the injury as well as blackening and tattooing found on the body of the injured is not possible. As per the medico legal report, the bullet passed across the neck of the injured, but no tissue inside the neck is found damaged. Moreover, there are two reports, in one of which, it is found that entry wound is on the left side, but in another report, entry wound is on the right side of the neck. Therefore, there are major contradictions in both the reports.
16. Further, as per the prosecution case, two persons are eye-witnesses, out of whom, one is P.W.-1, namely, Rama Kant Yadav and another is his uncle, namely, Kanik Ram. But, Kanik Ram was not produced before the trial Court.
17. The P.W.-2, namely, Ravi Kant Yadav has admitted that his face was towards the house at the time of the incident, hence, he could not see the assailants and he was later on informed in the hospital by the his brother, namely, Rama Kant that the injury was caused to him by the private respondents. As per the injured person's deposition, the bullet entered from the left side of his neck and passed across the right side.
As per the statement of P.W.-1, he saw the assailants when they were 10-15 feet away from them and when they started firing, the distance between them was about 10-15 feet.
The P.W.-4, namely, Dr. A.K. Srivastava, in his deposition, has stated that the injury on the neck of the injured can be caused from 6 inches to 6 feet from different weapons. But, in the present case, prosecution reveals that the fire was shot from 10 to 15 feet away from the injured.
18. The Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 2001 Edition, Page No. 354, reveals that the blackening and tattooing would be found, in case the fire is opened by a fire-arm like shot gun from a close range not more than 3 feet distance and the same would be found in case of a revolver or pistol, if the distance is about 2 feet, and the blackening caused by a higher power rifle can occur upto about 1 feet.
19. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire record, impugned order, statements of the witnesses as well as other relevant materials, it is evident that as per the deposition of P.W.-6, namely, Dr. Virendra Verma, the bullet entered from the right side of the neck and exited from the left side of the injured. But, as per the deposition of P.W.-2, the fire hit him from left side. It is also evident from the record that there are contradictions in the injury report as well as depositions of P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-4. It appears from the injury report that there was no damaged soft tissue. It is well settled that merely on the basis of history-sheet or criminal antecedent of a person, he cannot be presumed guilty.
The judgments relied by Sri Sushil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant in the cases of Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Haryana (supra), State of Punjab Vs. Pohla Singh and Anr. (supra), Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade and Anr. Vs. State of Maharasthra (supra) and Sheo Swarup Vs. King Emperor (supra), with the submissions that the appellate Court has full power to review the evidence and can reverse the acquittal by ignoring minor discrepancies in the deposition of the witnesses, are not applicable in the present case. The appellate Court can indisputably reverse the order of the acquittal only in case any strong evidence has been ignored by the trial Court, which is not done in the present case.
Similarly, the argument of learned A.G.A. that in case manner of assault corroborates with the medical evidence in the case of culpable homicide, credibility of the witness cannot be ignored on the ground that the witness is close relative and partisan witness and on only account of minor discrepancies in the deposition of witness as well as merely on the basis of minor contradictions or inconsistencies in the deposition of witness, acquittal should not be done, while relying on the decisions in the cases of Dr. Shailu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (supra), Rajendra alias Rajappa and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka (supra), Achhar Singh Vs. State of Himanchal Pradesh (supra), and Jagdish Narain and Anr. Vs. State of U.P. (supra), has no legs to stand, because in the present case, there are major contradictions in the deposition of P.W.-1 and contents of medico legal report proved by P.W.-4 and P.W.-6.
20. Moreover, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State (N.C.T. of Delhi) Vs. Navjot Sandhu reported in (2005) 11 SCC 600 has already held that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of legal proof.
21. On the basis of discussions made above, we find that the trial Court has rightly appreciated the entire evidence placed on record before it and there is no illegality in the impugned order.
22. Accordingly, both these appeals are dismissed.
(Rajeev Singh, J.) (Rajnish Kumar, J.)
October 17, 2025
Arpan
