Virendra Kumar and Ors v. State of U.P on 20 Nov 2025

Judgment

1. A perusal of the letter dated 19.11.2025 of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur, on record indicates that the appellant No.3-Ram Singh, son of Hardwari Teli had died 07 years ago.

2. Accordingly, present appeal stands abated in regard to the appellant No.3-Ram Singh, son of Hardwari Teli, resident of Village and Police Station-Sakran, District - Sitapur.

3. The letter dated 19.11.2025, aforesaid also indicates that the appellant No.1-Virendra Kumar, appellant No.2-Ram Chandra Yadav, appellant No.4-Ram Khelawan and appellant No.5-Servesh Verma were released on bail by the Magistrate pursuant to the order of the court dated 31.10.2025. These appellants are present before this Court, who have been identified by Shri Satyendra Kumar Maurya, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellants.

4. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the trial court record. 2 CRLA No. - 10 of 2011

5. This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. was filed on behalf of the appellant No(s). 1 to 5, Virendra Kumar, Ram Chandra Yadav, Ram Singh, Ram Khelawan and Servesh Verma impeaching the judgment and order 20.12.2010, passed by Additional Session Judge, Court No.6, Sitapur in Session Trial No.995/2006 (State Vs. Ramesh Bhurji and others), arising out of Case Crime No.88/2002, under Section(s) 149, 325, 342, 353, 420 and 429 IPC and Section 7 Crl. Law Amendment Act, Police Station - Sakran, District - Sitapur convicting the appellants for the offence under Sections 395, 307/149, 353, 332, 427, 342 I.P.C. and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and sentencing them to undergo Seven Years' R.I. with fine of Rs.5000/-, Ten Years' R.I. with fine of Rs.5000/-, Two Years' R.I., Three Years' R.I., One years' R.I. and Six Months' R.I. with default stipulation.

6. The case of prosecution, in nutshell, as set up in the written report is to the effect that on receiving confidential information about illegal purchase and storage of wheat in 'Crushers' situated in Sakran area, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Laharpur Shri Chandrabhushan Tripathi, Sudhir Kumar Rungta Tehsildar Laharpur, Naib Tehsildar Rajaram

Gautam, Supply Inspector Harishchandra Srivastava along with orderly Mohanlal and Homeguard 2174 Narendra Kumar and Homeguard 2202 Vijay Singh with government jeep U.P. 34 C 0252, driven by Nafis Ahmad, for sudden inspection of the centres, departed from Tehsil Laharpur and about 3:30 P.M. they reached for inspection of the Crusher of Mudrika Singh son of Dharmpal Singh, situated at Sakran and as soon as the said government jeep reached at the gate of the aforesaid Crusher the accused/appellants named above along with 150 unknown persons interfered in the process of inspection by the team of the Government Officials namely Chandra BhushanTripathi, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Laharpur (in short “SDM”), Sudhir Kumar Rungta, Tehsildar, Laharpur, Nayab Tehsildar-Rajaram Gautam, Supply Inspector-Harish Chandra Srivastava, Orderly-Mohan Lal, Home Guard 2174 Narendra Kumar and Home Guard 2202 Vijay Singh along with vehicle/Jeep bearing Registration No. UP 34 C 0252, driven by Nafis Ahmad (driver), and 3 CRLA No. - 10 of 2011 also damaged the Jeep, snatched the Guns from the above named Home Guards and also assaulted the aforesaid Officers/Officials.

7. The F.I.R. (Ext.Ka-4) of the incident was lodged on the same day on the written report (Ext.Ka-1) given by Ram Vilas Gupta, Revenue Inspector, Kateshar/Marsanda, Tehsil - Laharpur, District - Sitapur which was registered as Case Crime No.88 of 2002, at Police Station - Sakran, District - Sitapur under Sections 149, 332, 342, 353, 420, 427 I.P.C. and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act.

8. On the basis of the aforesaid F.I.R., investigation proceeded and the Investigating Officer (in short "I.O."), after completion of the investigation, based upon the evidence collected, submitted charge-sheet (Ext.Ka-15) against Ramesh Bhurji, Pradeep Verma, Santosh Verma, Sandeep Verma, Ram Khelawan, Sarvesh Verma and Mata Prasad under Sections 395, 307, 332, 353, 342, 420, 427 I.P.C. and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and charge-sheet (Ext. ka-16) against Deshraj Verma, Ram Naresh, Guddu Verma @ Rajesh Verma, Ram Chandra Yadav and Virendra Kumar under Sections 395, 307, 332, 353, 342, 420, 427 I.P.C. and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act.

9. It would be apt to indicate that in the incident some persons sustained injuries. Injury report of injured Mohan Lal (Ext.Ka-8), injury report of injured Vijay Singh (Ext.Ka-7), injury report of injured SDM Chandra Bhushan Tripathi (Ext.Ka-9) and injury report of injured Sudhir Kumar Rungta (Ext.Ka-10) were placed on record along with the charge sheet. In addition, the X-Ray reference slip (Ext.Ka-11) of injured Mohan Lal, X-Ray reference Slip of injured Vijay Singh (Ext.Ka-12), X- Ray reference Slip of injured Sudhir Kumar Rungta (Ext.Ka-13) and X- Ray reference Slip of injured SDM Chandra Bhushan Tripathi (Ext.Ka- 14) were also placed on record along with the charge sheet. The I.O. has also submitted the X-Ray report of injured Sudhir Kumar Rungta and Chandra Bhushan Tripathi (Ext.Ka-17 & Ext.Ka-18). The I.O. along with the charge sheet also submitted Site Plan (Ext.Ka-6 and Ext.Ka-5), Recovery Memo (Ext. Ka-8). 4 CRLA No. - 10 of 2011

10. The Magistrate after taking cognizance of the offence committed the case to the Court of Session where it was registered as S.T. No.995/2006 (State Vs. Ramesh Bhurji and others), arising out of Case Crime No.88/2002, under Sections 395, 307, 149, 332, 342, 353, 420, 427 I.P.C. and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station - Sakran, District - Sitapur, where the charges were framed against the accused persons Ramesh Bhurji, Ram Singh, Pradeep Verma, Santosh Verma, Sandeep Verma, Deshraj Verma, Ram Naresh, Guddu @ Rajesh Verma, Ram Chander, Virendra Kumar, Ram Khelawan, Sarvesh and Mata Prasad for the offence under Sections 394, 307 read with Section 149, 332, 342, 353, 420, 427 I.P.c. and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act. The accused persons denied the charges and claimed trial.

11. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined in oral evidence witnesses PW-1 Ramvilas Gupta, PW-2 Nafis Ahmad, PW-3 Harishchandra Srivastava, PW-4 Rajaram Gautam Naib Tehsildar, PW-5 Homeguard 2174 Narendra Kumar, PW-6 Homeguard 2202 Vijay Singh, PW-7 Mohanlal, PW-8 Sudhir Kumar Rungta, PW-9 Sub-Divisional Magistrate Chandrabhushan Tripathi, PW-10 retired Sub-Inspector Shyam Sunder Mishra, PW-11 S.I. Jayaram Gautam, PW-12 S.I. Shailesh Gaur, PW-13 Inspector Smt. Swarnjit Kaur, PW-14 Dr. Pradeep Kumar, PW-15 retired Inspector Shri Krishna Shukla, PW-16 Constable 278 Vivek Kumar Verma and PW-17 Dr. R.K. Srivastava.

12. These witnesses proved the documentary evidence as indicated above as also the prosecution case indicated in the F.I.R.

13. It would be apt to indicate here that it is well established that the evidence of an injured witness must be given due weightage as being an injured witness, his presence cannot be doubted. His statement is generally considered to be very reliable and it is unlikely that he/she has spared the actual assailant in order to falsely implicate someone else. The testimony of an injured witness has its own relevancy and efficacy as he has sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence and this 5 CRLA No. - 10 of 2011 lends support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence. Thus, the testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law. The witness would not like or want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to implicate a third person falsely for the commission of the offence. Thus, the evidence of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are grounds for the rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein [Vide: State of M.P. vs. Mansingh, (2003) 10 SCC 414; Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, (2009) 9 SCC 719; Balraje @ Trimbak v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 6 SCC 673; Abdul Sayeed vs. State of M.P.,