Allahabad High Court
Munim Singh Alias Yashwant Singh And ... vs State on 24 April, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:91871
Judgment Reserved on 3.4.2026 Judgment Delivered on 24.4.2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3121 of 1985
Munim Singh Alias Yashwant Singh And Others
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
Durgesh Pratap Singh, Prashant Kumar Singh, Y.S. Rathore
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
A.G.A.
Court No. - 39
HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 20.11.1985 passed by learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, in Session Trial No. 57 of 1985, whereby appellant Munim Singh @ Yashwant Singh has been convicted under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to five years? rigorous imprisonment. The other appellants, namely Gulab Singh, Om Prakash, and Balgovind Kushwaha, have been convicted under Sections 307/34 IPC and sentenced to five years? rigorous imprisonment each.
3. At the very outset, learned counsel for appellants submits that appellant no. 3, Balgovind Kushwaha, has died. Hence, the criminal appeal on his behalf stands dismissed as abated.
4. Appellant no. 1, Munim Singh @ Yashwant Singh, is the main accused who has been convicted under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to five years? rigorous imprisonment, but no fine has been imposed upon him. Similarly, Gulab Singh and Om Prakash have been convicted under Sections 307/34 IPC and sentenced to five years? rigorous imprisonment each; however, no fine has been imposed upon them either.
5. Section 307 IPC provides that whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if by that act death were caused, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine. Further, if hurt is caused, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life or to such punishment as mentioned above.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the learned trial court erred in law in passing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence under the first part of Section 307 IPC, wherein the statutory provision expressly stipulates that the accused ?shall also be liable to fine.? However, no fine has been imposed by the trial court. The omission to impose a fine, without recording any reasons, renders the sentencing order legally defective and unsustainable in the eyes of law. The trial court has thus failed to properly appreciate and apply the mandatory ingredients of the sentencing provision, vitiating the impugned judgment to that extent.
7. The case was instituted on the basis of a written complaint (tehrir), which is Exhibit Ka-4 and has been verified by P.W.-2 in his statement. According to the complaint, on 18.03.1984 at about 4:30 p.m., the complainant, Jwala Singh, along with his brother Ram Bahadur, was returning to the village when they saw a tractor standing near the pond. Munim Singh, Om Prakash, Gulab Singh, and Balgovind were present on the tractor. As soon as the complainant and his brother approached, Munim Singh fired at Ram Bahadur, while the other accused persons exhorted and also fired. Thereafter, all the accused fled from the spot on the tractor. Kalyan Singh was also present at the spot and witnessed the incident. Ram Bahadur sustained injuries in the firing. Subsequently, the complainant lodged a written report at the police station. After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused persons.
8. On the basis of the said written complaint, the check FIR (Exhibit Ka-1) was prepared and verified by P.W.-1. It is noted that there are several corrections in red ink in the original written complaint. On the basis of the check FIR, the investigation was conducted and thereafter a charge sheet (Exhibit Ka-5) was submitted against all the accused persons under Section 307 IPC.
9. Learned trial court framed charges under Sections 307/34 IPC against Gulab Singh, Om Prakash, and Balgovind, whereas a separate charge under Section 307 IPC was framed against Munim Singh @ Yashwant Singh.
10. P.W.-1, H.C. Suresh Babu, deposed that he was posted at Police Station Sumerpur in the capacity of Head Moharrir (H.M.). On 18.03.1984, at about 6:15 PM, the complainant in this case, Jwala Singh, submitted a written report (Tehrir) at the police station. On the basis of this report, he prepared the check FIR, which is before me, and is in his handwriting and bears his signatures. It has been marked as Exhibit Ka-1.
11. He further deposed that on the basis of this check FIR, he registered the case in the General Diary (G.D.) vide Report No. 15 at 18:15 hours on 18.03.1984. The original G.D. is before him, which is in his handwriting and bears his signatures. He was filing its true copy, written and signed by him, which has been marked as Exhibit Ka-2.
12. On 30.03.1984, the complainant, Jwala Singh, produced one blood-stained banyan (vest) of the injured, Ram Bahadur, which was stated to have been worn at the time of the incident. He took it into police custody, sealed it, and prepared its recovery memo (fard), which is in his handwriting and bears his signatures. It has been marked as Exhibit Ka-3.
13. In the cross-examination, he deposed that the written report referred to by him was handed over to him by Jwala Singh. However, there is no endorsement on the said report indicating when, where, and by whom it was received. He did not make such an endorsement because these facts were clearly mentioned in the General Diary.
14. He further deposed that there is no note on the written report to show that any case was registered on its basis. This was also not necessary, as the same has been mentioned in the G.D. In the check FIR proved by him, instead of mentioning the exact date of dispatch from the police station, it has been stated that it was sent through ?outgoing mail.?
15. At the time when the written report was submitted, Sub-Inspector Gopal Prasad was present, and he had signed the same. It is also recorded in the G.D. that the investigation of this case would be conducted by S.I. Gopal Prasad.
16. It is incorrect to suggest that the written report was prepared later and ante-dated. It is also incorrect to say that the check FIR and related records were ante-timed.
17. P.W.-2, the complainant Jwala Singh, deposed that he knew all the accused persons. Ram Bahadur, the injured, was his real brother. He stated that on 18.03.1984 at about 4:30 p.m., while returning after watering cattle, all the accused persons arrived on a tractor, stopped under a neem tree, abused them, and exhorted each other to kill them. Munim Singh snatched a gun from Gulab Singh and fired at Ram Bahadur, causing injuries on his left leg and abdomen.
18. He further deposed that after the incident, they took Ram Bahadur home and got a written report prepared by Yogendra Singh, which he signed after it was read over to him. The report was then submitted at Police Station Sumerpur. As no doctor was available at Sumerpur Hospital, the injured was taken to Hamirpur Hospital for treatment. Ram Bahadur later died, though not due to the injuries sustained in the present incident.
19. The witness also admitted that there was old enmity between the parties due to a dispute over installation of a borewell and earlier proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C. He further admitted several omissions and improvements in his testimony compared to the FIR, including the role of exhortation and the act of snatching the gun, which were not mentioned in the written report.
20. There are material contradictions between the written complaint, the Check FIR, and the deposition of P.W.-2. The FIR mentions that the tractor was already standing near the pond, whereas in his deposition he stated that it arrived later and stopped under a neem tree. He also admitted that he did not note the number of the tractor.
21. He further deposed that the firing was from a distance of 35?40 steps, but he could not specify the exact direction. The conduct of the witness, including taking the injured home before lodging the FIR and the absence of immediate medical treatment despite alleged serious injuries, raises doubts about the prosecution version.
22. He also admitted that his brother Ram Bahadur was previously an accused in a murder case and the father of Munim Singh was a witness against him, indicating strong enmity between the parties.
23. In cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that he had not witnessed the incident and had falsely implicated the accused due to prior enmity.
24. PW-3 Kalyan Singh, who is alleged to be eye witness of the incident has deposed as PW-3. He stated that he knows the accused present before the court. He is also acquittance with Ram Bahadur. The incident is of around one and half years in the evening at 4 to 4.30 hours. The Ram Bahadur was fired with bullet. At that time he was saving my masoor in my own khalihan. Ram Bahadur and Jwala Singh were returning after drinking water to their animals from the pond. The accused persons came from the village from the side of village Deogaon with a tractor. They had stopped the tractor under neem tree. It is contrary to the version of the prosecution in the written complaint as well as in the check FIR. Jwala Singh and Ram Bahadur were exhorted by all the accused persons and stated to kill them, they should not be saved. On this, accused Munim Singh snatched the gun of Gulab Singh and fired on Ram Bahadur. Ram Bahadur had suffered bullet. We all have exhorted that you should not hit any more then the accused persons fled towards their village alongwith tractor. PW-1 Jwala Singh is real brother of injured as well as complainant, which had not assigned any role of exhortation.
25. This witness , who is alleged to be present at the time of incident but was present in his khalihan. It is stated by Jwala Singh that he saw that Munim Singh had fired on Ram Bahadur and thereafter, Ram Bahadur had suffered firearm injury on left side of his abdomen and on left leg, whereas this witness did not verify any injury on the injured either on abdomen or on left leg by bullet, but he has simply assigned that some pellet were hit to Ram Bahadur. Both the statement of PW-1 and PW-2 are contradictory to each other, whereas both are alleged to be eye witness of the incident.
26. In the cross-examination, this witness deposed that he isalso accused in the murder case of Udai Singh. Ram Bahadur was also accused in the case of murder of Udai Singh. Sheo Raj Singh, father of Munim Singh is also witness in the said case of murder. The murder of Udai Singh was took place prior to 6-7 month of this incident. He was residing in same village after said incident. He was in the village after incident of firing. He had not went with the injured to Sumerpur. The Inspector had recorded my statement next day at 8.00 am in the morning at pond. He had not remembered that Inspector had collected any blood or not from the place of incident. He is aware about direction. My khalihan is situated towards north of the pond. Because there was colour going on, hence he was sitting at my khalihan as masoor was lying there. He was in my Khalihan on that day from noon. Kuti of Raidas Baba was there but it was at some distance. He specifically deposed in the cross-examination that when fire hit on Ram Bahadur, then he had seen that side. Prior to it, my major concentration was on my masoor. It created serious doubt that he has saw towards side of incident only fire was hit to the injured Ram Bahadur and prior to firing took place, his major concentration was to save his masoor in the Khalihan. It is also natural when person was at his own Khalihan to save his masoor, then certainly had major concentration over there.
27. He further deposed that when fire hit to Ram Bahadur at that time, he was coming towards my khalihan side, where in the complaint and statement of PW-1, eye witness Jwala Singh and injured Ram Bahadur was going to their village side after drinking water to their animals from the pond. He further deposed that animals/oxes were moving in front of them. After firing, the oxes were fled towards house. He had not remembered that Ram Bahadur was having anything to control the oxes. Khalihan of Baijnath Singh, Ram Sewak is nearby to my khalihan, but none of them were present in their khalihan. If Hariya Karchi was inside his house, he had not aware of it, but he was not came on the spot. Raidas Baba was also not come at the spot. This witness has specifically denied presence of any other persons at the place of incident either of Hariya Karchi or of Raidas Baba or of any other person. In his own statement he stated that he had saw towards side only after when fire took place, this is contradictory to the statement and the facts mentioned in the written Tehrir/complaint by Jwala Singh/eye witness and brother of injured, that Kalyan Singh has saw that Munim Singh had fired on the injured Ram Bahadur.
28. It is held by the Hon?ble Supeme Court in Paramjeet Singh @ pamma Vs. Uttarakhand reported in AIR 2011 SC 200 that the burden of proof lies on the prosecution, and the more serious the offence, the stricter the degree of proof required.
29. It is also held by the Hon?ble Supreme Court in Bur singh Vs State of Punjab 2009 (65) ACC 98 (Supreme Court) that it is the duty of the Court to separate truth from falsehood as the separation of grain is done from the chaff.
30. This witness further deposed that one portion of pond is adjoining to the way. This same was which is in between to reach to my khalihan from the pond. Khalihan of Ram Sewak is situated after that passage, Thereafter my khalihan. There is no bank/ghat towards this site of pond which is adjacent to the passage for drinking water to the animals. After the incident, he came near to Ram Bahadur and when person taken Ram Bahadur to Bharuwa (Sumerpur) from the spot, then he return to my village Banhaura. He had not left anybody at my khalihan. This witness deposed that the person took Ram Bahadur from the spot to Bharuwa(Sumerpur), whereas as per statement of complainant, Jwala Singh, who is also real brother and eye witness of said incident, he deposed that he took Ram Bahadur from the spot to his house and thereafter he prepared written Tehrir by Suresh and then written Tehrir was presented at the police station. Then they took the injured Ram Bahadur to hospital at Bharuwa (Sumerpur) where no doctor was found and then he took to him to District Hospital, Hamirpur, hence there is specific and open contradiction in the statement of PW-1 and PW-2 whereas both are stating that both are eye witness of said incident.
31. PW-4 is SI Girendra Singh, who had filed charge sheet and verified the same which is Ext. Ka-5. He had stated in the cross-examination that he had not interrogated with Hariya Karchi, Raidas Baba and other person. He had not made any necessity of recording statement of these persons.
32. PW-5, Sri Gopali Prasad, who is the first Investigating Officer. He deposed that he was posted at the police station Sumerpur as S.I in March 1984. Said case was registered in my presence at the said police station on 18.3.1984. He had recorded the statement of Head Moharrir and Suresh at the police station. Thereafter, on my moving from the police station, he had recorded the statement of complainant Jwala Singh, injured Ram Bahadur at the Bus stand Sumerpur. He had searched to accused persons, but could not find them. He had reached village Bamhaura on 19.3.1984 and recorded the statement of Kalyan Singh. He had also enquired to several other persons. Thereafter, he inspected the spot and prepared site plan which is verified by him as Ext. Ka-6. He further deposed that He had got injury report of injured Ram Bahadur on 21.3.1984 as well as x-ray report and recorded the same in the case diary. It came to my knowledge that accused persons has surrendered before the CJM on 26.3.1984 and sent to jail. Thereafter, he had gone to refresher course and rest investigation was done by SI Girendra Singh. He further deposed that whatever statement given by injured Ram Bahadur to myself under Section 161 Cr.P.C, he is submitting said statement which is written by my hand writing and signed which is Ext. Ka-6. Ram Bahadur injured had died.
33. In the cross-examination, he deposed that he did not find any blood from the spot. He had not recorded the statement of Raidas Baba and Hariya Kachi. May be these witnesses may not met, so he had not recorded their statements. It is belied to state that report was later written and ante-time is mentioned in it. It has to be clear that after this first IO, the investigation was given to Girendra Singh SI, who had deposed as PW-4. He did not record statement of any other witnesses as deposed by himself. He simply filed charge sheet.
34. PW-6 is Dr. V.K. Srivastava. He verified the injures of injured Ram Bahadur. He was posted at District Hospital, Hamirpur on 18.3.1984 and he found the following injuries on the injured:
a. A penetrating wound of 0.3 cm in diameter with inverted margins, extending deep up to the muscles, was present on the left side of the abdomen, 15 cm lateral to the umbilicus. Fresh oozing of blood was present, and red paint had been applied over it.
b. A penetrating wound of 0.3 cm in diameter with inverted margins, extending deep up to the muscles, was present on the left side of the abdomen, 2.5 cm away from Injury No. 1, directed obliquely upward and downward. Fresh bleeding was present, and red paint had been applied.
c. A penetrating wound of 0.3 cm in diameter with inverted, rounded margins, extending deep up to the muscles, was present on the posterolateral surface of the left thigh, 5 cm above the left knee joint. Fresh bleeding was present.
The nature of the injuries was kept under observation. X-ray of the chest, abdomen, and left thigh was advised. The duration of the injuries was approximately 6 to 8 hours.
35. The injury report was prepared by him as Ext. Ka-8. All the injuries caused to the injured Ram Bahadur may be of evening on 18.3.1984 at 4.30 pm. In the cross-examination , this witness stated that there was no blackening found. There was red paint was pasted on two wounds of injury nos. 1 and 2. It has to be noted that the injured had got some private treatment. He had not enquired about this. Duration may of 1-2 hours higher or lower side. This doctor who has medically examined the injured, he has not assigned prima facie opinion that injury may very serious in nature.
36. PW-7, Dr. K.C. Gupta, who is the Radiologist and conducted x-ray of injured on 19.3.1984 at District Hospital, Hamirpur of chest, abdomen and left thigh of the injured. He verified the report and x-ray plate No. 649 dated 19.3.1984. He verified the name and thumb impression of injured and his sign is also there. He deposed that after seeing the x-ray place, he had prepared the report which is in my hand writing and signature and verified it which is Ext. Ka-9 and X-ray plate Ext Ka-1-4.
37. X-ray of chest- one radio opaque shadow of metallic density round in shape, which is on the wall of abdomen. X-ray-abdomen-two radio opaque shadow of metallic density on left wall of abdomen. X-ray thigh- one radio opaque shadow of metallic density on left portion of left thigh.
38. He opined that these injury may be due to firearm. It is clear that he is the medical doctor. He is not ballistic expert.
39. The statement of accused-appellants were recorded under Section 313. They all of have denied all the evidences led by the prosecution and stated that false case has been lodged against them due to enmity.
40. The injured, who was a material witness, has not been examined in the case due to his death. However, he did not die as a result of the injuries alleged to have been caused in the said incident.
41. The prosecution has produced two witnesses of fact. P.W.-2, the complainant, Jwala Singh, is the real brother of the injured, and the injured, Kalyan Singh, P.W.3 is alleged to be an eyewitness who was guarding his masoor crop at the time of the incident at his khaliyan. There are serious contradictions in the statements of the witnesses of fact; which had been discussed herein above with great detail.
42. It is a settled principle of law that any benefit of doubt, if it arises, must go in favour of the accused persons. The prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused persons; whereas the prosecution miserably fails in discharging his burden of proof.
43. In view thereof, the judgment and order dated 20.11.1985 passed by learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, in Session Trial No. 57 of 1985, State Vs. Munim Singh and three others, is hereby set aside. Consequently, the appellants/accused persons 1. Munim Singh @ Yashwant Singh, 2. Gulab Singh, 3. Om Prakash are hereby acquitted for the offences under Sections 307, 307/34 I.P.C respectively. Their bail bonds as well as sureties stand discharged.
44. The criminal appeal is allowed accordingly.
(Abdul Shahid,J.) April 24, 2026 M. Tarik