St at e v. Yogendra Singh Bisht & Anr

m ot orcycle wit h an associat e and opened fire on him , from a count ry- m ade pist ol.

3. Based on t he said com plaint , an FI R was regist ered t he Police St at ion Mukhani, Dist rict Nainit al under Sect ion 307 read wit h Sect ion 34, 506 of I PC and 3/ 25 of t he Arm s Act . I t was also st at ed t hat along wit h Yogendra Singh Bisht anot her person cam e on his m ot orcycle t o assist Yogendra Singh Bisht in t he com m ission of crim e.

4. Aft er invest igat ion, charge- sheet subm it t ed against respondent no.2 under Sect ion 307 read wit h Sect ion 34 and 506 of I PC and Sect ion 3/ 25 of t he Arm s Act and against respondent no.3 - accused Anand Ram under Sect ion 307 read wit h Sect ion 34 and 506 of I PC. The Trial Court t ook cognizance of t he case and provided copies t o t he accused and com m it t ed t he case t o t he Sessions Court . Charges were fram ed against t he accused under sect ions as referred above. Several wit nesses exam ined including, appellant / com plainant as PW1, PW2 Devesh Kandpal, PW3 Kam al Joshi, PW4 Const able Manj u Pandey( FI R writ er) , PW5 Dr. Vasu Agarwal ( Medical Officer who t reat ed t he inj ured) , PW6 Const able Harikrishna Mishra, 2 PW7 Const able Pradeep Pilkhwal, PW8 Gaurav Joshi, PW9 Sub- I nspect or Mahesh Joshi ( I nvest igat ing Officer) , PW10 Geet a Pat hak ( wife of t he com plainant ) and PW11 Naresh Kum ar Pat hak. The following exhibit s were m arked during t he t rial - writ t en report ( Ex.P- 1) , seizure m em o of t wo pellet s ( Ex.P- 2) , seizure m em o of a sando vest ( Ex.P- 3) , FI R ( Ex.P- 4) , GD ent ry( Ex.P- 5) , m edical supplem ent ary report ( Ex.P- 6) , seizure m em o of a 12- bore count ry- m ade pist ol ( Ex.P- 7) , sam ple seal ( Ex.P- 8) , sit e plan( Ex.P- 9) , arrest m em o of accused Anand Ram ( Ex.P- 10) , inform at ion m em o ( Ex.P- 11) , checklist ( Ex.P- 12) , sit e plan of recovery locat ion ( Ex.P- 13) and charge sheet ( Ex.P- 14) .

5. The prosecut ion wit nesses were exam ined and aft er com plet ion of t he prosecut ion evidence t he st at em ent s of t he accused/ respondent no.2 and respondent no.3 were recorded under Sect ion 313 Cr.P.C., however, t hey denied t he prosecut ion’s version and claim ed t hat prosecut ion wit nesses had given false t est im ony and indicat ed t heir int ent ion t o present defence evidence but no defence evidence was present ed. The Trial Court aft er hearing t he part ies and on exam inat ion of evidence led before it , acquit t ed t he respondent nos.2 and 3.

6. Learned counsel t he appellant / com plainant cont ended t hat t he learned Trial Court failed t o consider t he st at em ent s m ade by all t he prosecut ion’s wit nesses and t he recovery of cart ridge proved t hat t he offence was com m it t ed by t he accused and on erroneous analysis of evidences acquit t ed respondent nos.2 and 3. 3

7. The learned Trial Court acquit t ed respondent nos.2 and 3 on t he ground t hat prosecut ion failed t o it s case beyond reasonable doubt and arriving at t he aforesaid conclusion, considered t he following aspect s of t he m at t er: - A) The appellant cont ended t hat t he accused Yogendra Singh Bisht opened fired at him t wice and t he pellet s hit t he wall and t hen st ruck t he com plainant . I t was held t hat if pellet s from 12 bore gun hit a wall t hen it would eit her creat e a sm all hole, em bed in t he wall or fall t o t he ground aft er im pact because pellet s from 12 bore do not have enough velocit y t o reflect t he anot her direct ion aft er hit t ing a wall. B) I f a person is direct ly hit by pellet s from 12 bore firearm t hen t he inj ury would be of an incise wound or a punct ured wound and not j ust an abrasion m ark. PW5 Dr. Vasu Agrawal, who exam ined t he com plainant , in it s m edical report t he following inj uries: - 1) Abrasion - a scraped m ark m easuring

0.7 cm . x 0.5 cm on t he right side of t he abdom en. There was no burning or t at t ooing present . 2) Second inj ury was also an abrasion and a scraped m ark on t he m iddle finger of t he left hand m easuring 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm , reddish in colour. C) Medical supplem ent ary report of t he com plainant aft er X- ray of abdom en det ect ed 4 no m et allic shadow, no bone inj ury or sign of perforat ion. The opinion expressed aft er t he conduct of t he X- ray was of norm al st udy and inj ury was sim ple in nat ure. The said m edical report is m arked as Paper No.15Ka/ 1 and 15Ka/ 3 and t he said papers were ident ified by Dr. Vasu Agrawal. D) The m et al pellet s were handed over by t he com plainant t o t he Sub- I nspect or, Mahesh Joshi ( PW9) , st at ing t hat t hey were recovered from t he house of t he com plainant aft er t he accused persons fired at him . A seizure m em o was prepared and t he count ry- m ade pist ol and an em pt y 12 bore cart ridge recovered from a j ungle pat hway bet ween Fat ehpur and Kaladhungi

14.07.2020 at t he inst ance of accused Yogendra Bisht . The m et al pellet s, count ry- m ade pist ol and 12 bore cart ridge were sent for FSL exam inat ion. I n t he FSL report and t he relat ed docum ent s ( paper nos.30- Kha/ 2 t o 30Kha/ 5) , it is indicat ed t hat t he gunshot s residue det ect ed on t he t wo m et al pieces could not be possible t o link t o t he pist ol due t o insufficient individual charact erist ic m ark.

8. We have heard learned counsel t he appellant and perused t he records. On perusal of t he records, we are of t he considered view t hat t here is no infirm it y in t he order passed by t he learned Trial Court . Considering t he ent ire aspect of t he m at t er and aft er t he proper analysis of t he wit nesses, t he Trial Court held t hat t he prosecut ion could not prove t he case 5 beyond reasonable doubt and respondent nos.2 and 3 were acquit t ed of t he charges levelled against t hem .

9. The j udgm ent and order passed by t he learned Trial Court has been passed aft er considering t he ent ire prosecut ion evidence and t he learned Trial Court found t hat t he case set up by t he prosecut ion, on t he basis of t he com plaint , was of firearm inj uries, however, t he m edical report did not corroborat e wit h t he said cont ent ion. The m edical report indicat ed t hat t he inj uries on t he com plainant could have been inflict ed by t he com plainant him self. The learned Trial Court also held t hat t here was som e propert y disput e bet ween t he com plainant and t he privat e respondent and, as such, it appear t hat t he crim inal com plaint was m ade t o set t le t he scores wit h regard t o t he said propert y disput e.

10. Thus, t he findings recorded by t he learned Trial Court of acquit t ing respondent nos.2 and 3, on t he ground t hat t he prosecut ion could not prove it s case beyond reasonable doubt , does not suffer from any infirm it y and, as such, t he Crim inal Appeal fails and t he sam e is dism issed. ( G. N A REN D A R, C.J.) ( SUBH A SH UPA D H A YA , J.) Dat ed: 20.08.2025 Sukhbant SUKHBANT SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=71978f9c61bfde0ba69967c787b1764ea7bc7dd129a8a6380d49b1885e628615, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=2D8B71B8D8E345F6B7F95B1DD4FB4BEBD2B7D72C42261361AED33172F 152148D, cn=SUKHBANT SINGH 6