Vinod vs State Of U.P.
2026 Latest Caselaw 675 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Vinod vs State Of U.P. on 2 April, 2026

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 



 

 

 

 

 
AFR
 

 
Judgement Reserved on 11.03.2026
 
Judgement Delivered on 02.04.2026
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4964 of 2015
 

 
Vinod
 

 

 
..Appellant(s)
 

 

 

 

 
Versus
 

 

 

 

 
State of U.P.
 

 

 
..Respondent(s)
 

 

 
Counsel for Appellant(s)
 
:
 
Ajay Kumar Mishra, Bhavya Sahai, Ram Babu Sharma, Sandeep Kumar Rai, Vikrant Rana
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)
 
:
 
Adesh Kumar, G.A.
 

 

 
Court No. - 45 
 

 
HON'BLE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.

HON'BLE DEVENDRA SINGH-I, J.

Per Honble Chandra Dhari Singh, J

1. This criminal appeal has been filed against judgement dated 07.10.2015 and order dated 08.10.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Meerut in Sessions Trial No. 207 of 2010, arising out of Case Crime No. 170 of 2009, under Section 302/201 IPC, Police Station Saroorpur, district Meerut whereby the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in case of default in payment of fine, the appellant shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years.

2. However, by the same judgement, the learned Judge acquitted co-accused Omkar under Section 302/201 IPC and appellant Vinod under Section 201 IPC.

Facts of the case

3. The facts that formed the bedrock of the present criminal appeal are that a written report was given by Kartar Singh (hereinafter referred to as the first informant) at the police outpost Khiwai of police station Saroorpur mentioning therein that the applicant is the resident of village and post Sarauli, district Ghaziabad. His daughter Chanchal (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) aged about 13 years was living with Rati Ram, uncle (Phupha) of his wife since her birth. On 06.06.2009, Rati Ram informed him on telephone that he sustained injuries in his leg due to fall from cart. On that information, when the first informant along with his brother and uncle reached there, enquired Rati Ram about his injury, then he told the first informant that his daughter is missing since 4 Oclock. The first informant asked Rati Ram to accompany him to get the first information report lodged and when the brother of Rati Ram went to his house to wear Kurta, he found the dead body of Chanchal lying at his door.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid report, a case was registered at case crime No. 53 of 2009, under Section 302 IPC at the police outpost Khiwai, police station Saroorpur, district Meerut. However, the case was renumbered as case crime No. 170 of 2009, at Police Station Saroorpur, which was entered in GD vide report No. 31 at 18:35 hours.

5. On the next day, the first informant submitted another written report Paper No. Aa 10/1, which was not proved before the Court, alleging therein that in addition to previous written report that his daughter was murdered on 6th June, 2009 between 04:00 PM and 1:10 AM, after the post-mortem examination, when he took the dead body of her daughter to his village, his cousin Pradeep, son of Vijendra and Jalindra, son of Rajbir also reached his village and told him that on 06.06.2009, they had gone to village Kinauni at the house of Rati Ram and met their niece Chanchal. They remained at the house of Rati from from 4 to 5 PM and in their presence Vinod, son of Chandru called Chanchal to prepare 2-3 cup of tea stating that her aunt is not at home and his friend has come. At about 5:00 PM Chanchal went there with tea. Thereafter, both of them had left for village Maharampur. The first informant has made a suspicion that Vinod, son of Chandru had killed her.

6. On 12.06.2009, the first informant had submitted another application Paper No. Aa 10/3 mentioning therein that his brother-in-law Sube Singh and Kadam, resident of Mukeem Pura, district Baghpat had come to his house and told him that on the date of incident when they went to make water, they saw that Vinod and Omkar alias Suda, son of Chandru throwing the dead body of Chanchal at the door of Yashpal taking from the house of Vinod. This paper has also not been proved before the Court.

7. After registration of the case, the law set into motion and investigation of the case was entrusted to PW-8, Pramod Kumar Sharma. PW-7, SI Tej Singh Yadav, who was present at the police station rushed to the spot and conducted the inquest on the dead body of the deceased and prepared inquest report and other papers, Ext. Ka-3 to 7, sealed the dead body and sent if for post-mortem through Constables Ramesh Chand and Surendrapal Singh.

8. PW-8, SHO Pramod Kumar Sharma, in his evidence has stated that on 07.6.2009, he was posted as Station House Officer at police station Saroorpur. On that day, he started the investigation of case crime No. 53/170 of 2009, which was registered at reporting out post Khiwai. After receiving the post mortem report of the deceased, he converted the case to one under section 302 IPC. He recorded the statement of Clerk Constable Sukhbir Singh and left for the house of the deceased, but no one was present. On 08.6.2009, he recorded the statement of the first informant and also copied the post-mortem report and inquest report in the CD. On the pointing out of Rati Ram he inspected the spot and prepared site plan. He also recorded the statement of the witnesses. On 15.6.2009, the first informant made another application, on the basis whereof Section 201 was added and name of Omkar has been added in the array of accused. After culmination of investigation and completing necessary formalities, the investigating officer submitted charge sheet No. 153 of 2009, Ext. Ka-10 on 16.8.2009.

9. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions where case was registered as Sessions Trial No. 207 of 2010. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Meerut framed the charges against the appellant-Vinod and co-accused Omkar under Section 302/34 and 201 IPC, which were read over and explained to them. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

10. To bring home guilt of the appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses. PW-1, Kartar Singh, PW-2, Rati Ram, PW-3 Dr. Ravi Prakash, PW-4, Jalindra Singh, PW-5, Pradeep, PW-6, Sube Singh, PW-7, SI Tej Singh yadav, PW-8, Inspector Pramod Kumar Sharma, PW-9, Premo Devi, PW-10, Dr. Rakesh Chandra, PW-11, Yashpal.

11. PW-1, Kartar Singh is father of the deceased and first informant of the case. He reiterated the versions given in the first information report. He further deposed that on 08.6.2009 and 12.06.2009 he also made application to the police.

12. PW-2, Rati Ram in his examination-in-chief deposed that he knows accused Vinod and Omkar. Accused-Vinod is his nephew. He also stated that since he has no issue, the deceased was living with him when she was aged about 2 years. At the time of incident she was aged about 13-14. She also looks him after as well as his wife. The house of accused-Vinod is adjacent to his house. At the time of incident, the family of Vinod was not at home. Omkar and Vinod were at the house. On the date of occurrence at about 05:00 PM, accused-Vinod called the deceased to his house for making tea as his wife was not at home. At that time, Pradeep, Jalendra and his wife were also present there. Chanchal went to the house of Vinod. When Chanchal did not come back, they made a search in the neighbourhood. He also went at the house of Vinod, but the house was locked and Omkar and Vinod were not at home. Thereafter, he informed the relatives as well as father of the deceased. Kartar, Jalendra and Pradeep reached at about 1-1/2 hours to whom he told about the missing of the deceased. He further deposed that when the first informant asked him to accompany him to get the first information report lodged and when Yashpal, brother of Rati Ram went to his house to wear Dhoti, he found the dead body of Chanchal lying at the brick kiln near the house of Yashpal. There was mark of dragging from the house of Vinod up to brick kiln. The house of Vinod was locked. The door of southern side of the house was opened and green paint which was on the room, was also also got on the clothes of the deceased.

13. PW-3, Dr. Ravi Prakash has stated on oath that he was posted at P.L. Sharma Hospital, Meerut and on 07.6.2009, he was on post mortem duty. On that date at about 03:30 PM, he conducted the post-mortem on the body of the deceased and found the following ante-mortem injuries:

1. An abrasion in an area of 4 cm c 2 cm in front of left right ankle.

2. Multiple abrasion in an area of 8 cm x 4 cm on the posterior area of left ankle just 15 cm above the heel.

3. A lacerated wound in the shape of 1 cm x 0.5 cm on upper portion of second finger of right hand.

4. A lacerated wound in an area of 2 cm x 1 cm just above nail of left hand.

5. A Ligature mark horizontal size 28 cm x 4.0 cm on the front of neck below the thyroid cartilage, 7 cm below the chin, 5 cm below left ear and 6 cm below right ear, thyroid base was brown.

14. In the opinion of the Doctor, the cause of death of the deceased was asphyxia due to strangulation.

15. PW-4, Jalindra Singh has stated in his examination-in-chief that the deceased was his niece and she was living with Rati Ram. He had gone to village Kinauni on 06.6.2009 with his cousin Pradeep at about 3:45 PM. When he reached Kinauni, Rati Ram, deceased and his Mausi Premo were present there. They stayed there for 30-45 minutes. During their stay, Vinod called the deceased to prepare tea because her aunt was not at home. House of Vinod is attached to the house of Rati Ram. The deceased went to the house of Vinod. After that he stayed there and returned to his village. The deceased did not return. On 07.6.2009 at about 07:00 AM, they reached Sirauli where people were gathered and dead body of Chanchal was lying. This fact was informed to Kartar Singh by him. On the next day, Kartar Singh informed the police in writing about the said fact.

16. PW-5, Pradeep in his examination-in-chief stated that on the date of incident he went to village Kanauni at about 3:45-04:00 PM. Thereafter his cousin Jalendra has also come. He met Rati Ram, Smt Premo and the deceased-Chanchal in the village. At that time accused-Vinod called the deceased for preparing tea. Deceased-Chanchal went to the house of Vinod from roof. He left the village about 10-15 minutes thereafter and by that time the deceased did not return. He received the information about the death of the deceased on 07.6.2009. Thereafter, he met Kartar Singh and told him about the said fact.

17. PW-6, Sube Singh in this examination-in-chief stated that on 06.6.2009 at about 09:30 PM, he received a call from Kartar Singh to go and find out about the injury of Rati Ram. When he along with Kadam Singh went to village Kanauni, they came to know that every body was searching the deceased. They also started searching the deceased. When they were searching the deceased they saw accused Omkar and Vinod going with long stride at about 12:30 in the night. He told the said fact to Kartar Singh on 12.06.2009.

18. PW-7, SI Tej Singh Yadav conducted the inquest on the dead body of the deceased and prepared inquest report and other papers, Ext. Ka-3 to 7, sealed the dead body and sent if for post-mortem through Constables Ramesh Chand and Surendrapal Singh.

19. PW-8, Pramod Kumar Sharma was the investigating officer of the case. He conducted investigation and submitted charge sheet against the accused, Ext. Ka-10.

20. PW-9, Smt. Premo is the wife of Rati Ram. She has almost stated the facts, which have been stated by PW-2, Rati Ram.

21. PW-10, Dr. Rakesh Chandra in his examination-in-chief deposed that on 13.06.2009, he was posted at Health Centre Saroorpur as In-charge Medical Officer. On that date at 1:45 PM, he examined accused-Vinod Kumar, son of Chandru, aged about 24 years, who was brought by Clerk Constable Jagvir Gautam and found the following Injury on his person:

Linear abrasion 4.5 cm into vertically on the right side of face 5 cm away from right ear.

22. In the opinion of the doctor the injury was simple and caused by friction agent sharp surface. The injury was about one week old, which he proved as Ext. Ka-15.

23. PW-11, Yashpal, in his examination-in-chief has stated that on 06.6.2009 at about 2-2-1/2 PM, he had gone to water the field and came back to his house at about 1:00 in the night. When he came to village, he saw 10-15 persons sitting at the door of Rati Ram and were talking to each other that Chanchal was missing. Out of the persons who gathered there, Rajbir, Kartar and Pratap were his relative. When the deceased could not be found, they decided to lodge a report. Thereafter, when he was coming to his house to wear clothes, he saw the dead body of the deceased in the heap of bricks lying in the lane of Vinod. Thereafter, he came back to told the persons gathered there about the dead body.

24. After the closure of prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them and claimed to be tried.

25. Learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (EC Act), Meerut after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and assessing, evaluating and scrutinizing the evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as indicated herein above.

26. Hence this appeal.

Submissions on behalf of the appellant

27. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that all the witnesses are close relatives and that the testimony of the said witnesses falls in the category of wholly unreliable witnesses and as such, the conviction cannot be sustained.

28. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that on the same evidence, co-accused Omkar has been exonerated by the learned Trial Court. The appellant has also been acquitted under Section 201 IPC.

Submission on behalf of State

29. Per contra Shri S.K. Ojha, learned Additional Government Advocate-I supported the findings of the learned trial court by stating that the learned trial court has correctly martialled the evidence and considered each and every aspect of the case while convicting the appellant and that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt.

Analysis and conclusion

30. Heard Shri Sandeep Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri S.K. Ojha, learned Additional Government Advocate-I, representing the State of U.P.

31. A witness in a crime is a vital component in the administration of justice. By providing evidence related to the allegation of the offence, the witness fulfils a holy obligation of aiding the court in discovering the truth or rather facts. That is why before presenting testimony, a witness takes an oath in the name of God or makes a solemn statement that he/she will narrate the truth, the entire truth and nothing but the truth. In our justice system, witnesses play a critical role in assisting courts in making effective judgements, ensuring that justice is given to those who need it the most.

32. In the instant case, the first information report has been lodged by PW-1, Kartar Singh on 07.6.20209 at 07.00 AM in respect of the death of his daughter (deceased). On this application, case crime No. 53 of 2009, under Section 302 IPC was registered at outpost Khiwai of Police Station Saroorpur, district Meerut. However, the case was renumbered as case crime No. 170 of 2009, at Police Station Saroorpur, which was entered in GD vide report No. 31 at 18:35 hours. In the first information report, no one was made as accused.

33. On the next day (08.6.2009) the first informant submitted another written report Paper No. Aa 10/1 alleging therein that in addition to previous written report that his daughter was murdered on 6th June, 2009 between 04:00 PM and 1:10 AM, after the post-mortem examination, when he took the dead body of her daughter to his village, his cousin Pradeep, son of Vijendra and Jalindra, son of Rajbir also reached his village and told him that on 06.06.2009, they had gone to village Kinauni at the house of Rati Ram and met their niece Chanchal. They remained at the house of Rati from from 4 to 5 PM and in their presence Vinod, son of Chandru called Chanchal to prepare 2-3 cup of tea stating that her aunt is not at home and his friend has come. At about 5 PM Chanchal went there with tea. The first informant has made a suspicion that Vinod, son of Chandru had killed her.

34. Again on 12.06.2009, the first informant had submitted third application Paper No. A 10/3 mentioning therein that his brother-in-law Sube Singh and Kadam, resident of Mukeem Pura, district Baghpat told him that on the date of incident when they went to make water, they saw that Vinod and Omkar alias Suda, son of Chandru throwing the dead body of Chanchal at the door of Yashpal taking from the house of Vinod.

35. From the perusal of all the applications submitted by Kartar Singh, the first informant of the case, it is clear that he has nominated the accused on the basis of information gathered in piecemeal from his relatives and friends.

36. It is admitted facts that all the prosecution witnesses are related to each other. The rule of prudence of the point of related and interested witnesses is that their evidence should be meticulously and carefully examined. Before discussing the evidence prosecution witnesses, it would be useful to refer to certain pronouncement of Honble Supreme Court on the point of related witnesses.

37. In Masalti Vs. State of U.P. (1964) 8 SCR 133 the Supreme Court observed:

"But it would, we think, be unreasonable to contend that evidence given by witnesses should be discarded only on the ground that it is evidence of partisan or interested witnesses. The mechanical rejection of such evidence on the sole ground that it is partisan, would invariably lead to failure of justice. No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to how much evidence should be appreciated. Judicial approach has to be cautious in dealing with such evidence; but the plea that such evidence should be rejected because it is partisan cannot be accepted as correct."

38. In Raju Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2012)4 SCC (Cri) 184 ,Honble Supreme Court held as under:

The sum and substance is that the evidence of a related or interested witness should be meticulously and carefully examined. In a case where the related and interested witness may have some enmity with the assailant, the bar would need to be raised and the evidence of the witness would have to be examined by applying a standard of discerning scrutiny.

39. The aforesaid decision in Raju (Supra) was followed by Honble Supreme Court in Edakkandi Dineshan alias P. Dineshan and others Vs. State of Kerala, (2025) 3 SCC 273.

40. In Criminal Appeal No. 2490 of 2014 (Chhote Lal Vs. Rohtash and others), decided on 14.12.2023, Honble Supreme Court held as under:

It may not be out of context to mention that the appellant/complainant, a sole eyewitness, happens to be the most interested witness being the father of the deceased and having long enmity with the group to which the accused persons belong, therefore, his testimony was to be examined with great caution and the High Court was justified in doing so and in doubting it so as to uphold the conviction on his solitary evidence

41. It would also be apt to refer certain pronouncement of Honble Supreme Court on the point of reliability of witnesses.

42. In Vadivelu Thevar Vs. State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 614, is the celebrated judement of Honble Supreme Court, in which it has been held as under:

Hence, in our opinion, it is a sound and well-established rule of law that the court is concerned with the quality and not with the quantity of the evidence necessary for proving or disproving a fact. Generally speaking, oral testimony in this context may be classified into three categories, namely:

(1) Wholly reliable.

(2) Wholly unreliable.

(3) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.

In the first category of proof, the court should have no difficulty in coming to its conclusion either way - it may convict or may acquit on the testimony of a single witness, if it is found to be above reproach or suspicion of interestedness, incompetence or subornation. In the second category, the court equally has no difficulty in coming to its conclusion. It is in the third category of cases, that the court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial. There is another danger in insisting on plurality of witnesses. Irrespective of the quality of the oral evidence of a single witness, if courts were to insist on plurality of witnesses in proof of any fact, they will be indirectly encouraging subornation of witnesses. Situations may arise and do arise where only a single person is available to give evidence in support of a disputed fact. The court naturally has to weigh carefully such a testimony and if it is satisfied that the evidence is reliable and free from all taints which tend to render oral testimony open to suspicion, it becomes its duty to act upon such testimony. The law reports contain many precedents where the court had to depend and act upon the testimony of a single witness in support of the prosecution. There are exceptions to this rule, for example, in cases of sexual offences or of the testimony of an approver; both these are cases in which the oral testimony is, by its very nature, suspect, being that of a participator in crime. But, where there are no such exceptional reasons operating, it becomes the duty of the court to convict, if it is satisfied that the testimony of a single witness is entirely reliable. We have therefore, no reasons to refuse to act upon the testimony of the first witness, which is the only reliable evidence in support of the prosecution.

43. Keeping in view the observations of Honble Supreme Court in the judgements referred to above, we shall now proceed to discuss the evidence of prosecution witnesses.

44. PW-1, Kartar Singh is the father of the deceased and he lodged the first information report and made applications dated 08.6.2009 and 12.06.2009 on the information furnished by the witnesses. He was not the eyewitness of the case.

45. PW-2, Rati Ram, in whose house, the deceased was living, in his evidence PW-2, Rati Ram has stated that on the date of occurrence at about 05:00 PM, accused-Vinod called the deceased to his house for making tea as his wife was not at home. At that time, Pradeep, Jalendra and his wife were also present there. Chanchal went to the house of Vinod. When Chanchal did not come back, they made a search in the neighbourhood. He also went at the house of Vinod, but the house was locked and Omkar and Vinod were not at home. Thereafter on receiving the phone call, Kartar (PW-1), Jalendra (PW-4), Rajvir and Pradeep (PW-5) rushed to the spot at about 01:30 AM. The dead body of Chanchal was lying at the brick kiln near the house of Yashpal. There was mark of dragging from the house of Vinod up to brick kiln. The house of Vinod was locked. The door of southern side of the house was opened and green paint which was on the room, was also got on the clothes of the deceased. In his cross examination, PW-2 has stated that when he started search, first of all, he went to the house of Tejpal and thereafter he went to the house of Jhunde, Satpal and Bhukhan and in last he went to the house of Vinod.

46. From the perusal of evidence of PW-2, it transpires that when he had the knowledge about dragging of the deceased from the house of Vinod up to the brick kiln before lodging the first information report as well as going of the deceased to the house of Vinod, this Court failed to understand as to why he has not told this fact to PW-1, Kartar Singh and why he had not gone to the house of Vinod first when he was sure that the deceased had gone to the house of Vinod. Further, as per the examination-in-chief of PW-2, at about 01:30 in the night Jalendra (PW-4), Rajvir and Pradeep (PW-5) reached his house along with first informant Kartar Singh, whereas in the application given to the police by the first informant on 08.6.2009, paper No. Aa 10/1 has stated that he received information from PW-4 Jalendra that Vinod called the deceased for preparing tea at 05:00 PM on 06.6.2009.

47. PW-4, Jalendra Singh claims himself to be uncle of the deceased. In this case the incident in question took place at about 05:00 PM on 06.06.2009 and the dead body of the deceased was recovered at about 01:30 AM in the night intervening 06/07.6.2009 and the first information report of the incident was lodged at 07:00 in the morning of 07.6.2009. In his cross-examination, PW-4, Jalendra Singh has stated he did not receive any information by 07:00 PM on 07.6.2009 that Chanchal has been killed and that he has not received any information from the house of Rati Ram about the death of the deceased. Whereas PW-2, Rati Ram in his evidence has stated that PW-4 Jalendra Singh reached the spot in the night intervening 6/7/.6.2009 at about 01:30. It is unlikely that PW-4, Jalendra Singh, who is uncle of the deceased had no knowledge about the death of the deceased, who was his niece even after recovery of the dead body. Further, there is contradiction in the statement of PW-2 Rati Ram and PW-4, Jalendra Singh.

48. PW-5, In his cross-examination, which was recorded on 06.1.2012, has stated that on the date of incident he went to the house of Rati Ram alone on motorcycle, which belonged to his neighbour Robi. He does not have any motorcycle. He further stated that on the date of incident he went to the house of Rati Ram on the motorcycle, which belongs to the friend of Jalendra. On the date of incident (06.06.2009) before going to village Kinauni, he met Kartar Singh, who asked him to visit Kinauni. However, at other place of his cross-examination, he stated that till 07:00 PM on 07.6.2009, he did not have any conversation with Kartar Singh. In view of the above discrepancies in his evidence, it can safely be inferred that he is totally unreliable witness.

49. PW-6, Sube Singh is the brother-in-law (Sala) of the first informant. In this examination-in-chief, he stated that on 06.6.2009 at about 09:30 PM, he received a call from Kartar Singh to go and find out about the injury of Rati Ram. When he along with Kadam Singh went to village Kanauni, they came to know that every body was searching the deceased. They also started searching the deceased. When they were searching the deceased they saw accused Omkar and Vinod going with long stride at about 12:30 in the night. He told the said fact to Kartar Singh on 12.06.2009. The aforesaid statement of PW-6, Sube Singh, who is brother-in-law (Sala) of the first informant is too hard to swallow inasmuch as he has informed the first informant about the said fact only on 12.06.2009.

50. PW-9, Premo, wife of Rati Ram in her evidence has stated that when it was discovered that the body of the deceased was lying at the heap of bricks, every body went to see the dead body. There was mark of dragging from the house of Vinod up to brick kiln/heap of bricks.

51. From the perusal of evidence of PW-9 also, it transpires that she had got the knowledge about dragging of the deceased from the house of Vinod up to the brick kiln before lodging the first information report as well as going of the deceased to the house of Vinod, but this Court failed to understand as to why s has not told this fact to PW-1, Kartar Singh.

52. PW-11, Yashpal is the brother of PW-2, Rati Ram. He has only seen the dead body lying beside his house on the heap of bricks.

53. From the perusal of the above evidence of the witnesses, it can be safely be inferred that their evidences are full of discrepancies and they can be termed as wholly unreliable witnesses. It can also be held that this is a case of no evidence and the evidence has been fabricated in piecemeal to drag the appellant in the present case.

54. In view of the above, the judgement dated 07.10.2015 and order dated 08.10.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Meerut in Sessions Trial No. 207 of 2010, arising out of Case Crime No. 170 of 2009, under Section 302/201 IPC, Police Station Saroorpur, district Meerut are set aside. The appellant-Vinod is acquitted of the charge levelled against him.

55. The appeal is allowed.

56. The appellant is on bail. His bail bond is cancelled and sureties are discharged.

57. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the court concerned for compliance and compliance report be submitted to this Court within two months.

(Devendra Singh-I,J.) (Chandra Dhari Singh,J.)

April 02, 2026

Ishrat