# Ali Hasan & Ors v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2026) 2 ILRA 83
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-02-16
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 2044 of 1983
- **Bench:** Avnish Saxena
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ali-hasan-ors-v-state-of-u-p-54854
- **Pages:** 10

## Text

2 All. Ali Hasan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
83

(33) The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Suresh Yadav versus State of Chhatisgarh;
(2022) 19 SCC 469, in which the appellant was released on remission by the Government and the
conviction was upheld, held that dismissal of the appeal shall not be of any adverse effect on such
exercise of power of remission by the State Government because under Article 161 of the
Constitution of India, the Governor of a State has a power to grant remissions of punishment of any
person convicted of any offence against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power
of the State extends. The relevant paragraph 11 is extracted hereinbelow:-

As per the office report and the custody certificate placed before us, it appears that on
07.09.2019, the appellant, after having served the sentence of imprisonment for a period of 15 years
9 months and 27 days, was released under Section 432 Cr.P.C. by the Government of Chhatisgarh.
Having regard to the circumstances, we make it clear that dismissal of the appeal shall not be of
any adverse effect on such exercise of power of remission by the Government of chhatisgarh.

(34) In view of above and considering overall facts and circumstances of case, the appeal is
dismissed, upholding the conviction and confirming the sentence awarded by the learned trial
court. However, in view of the fact that the appellant no.2 has been released on remission granted
by the Governor under Article 161 of the Constitution of India, he is not required to surrender to
undergo the remaining period of sentence.

(35) Let a copy of this judgment alongwith the Trial Court's record be sent back forthwith and
in any case within a period of one week from today.
----------
(2026) 2 ILRA 83
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 2044 of 1983

Ali Hasan & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Issue for consideration
The matter pertains to a criminal appeal against a dacoity conviction where seven named co-villagers
allegedly committed dacoity at Dhanpal's house, looting cash and ornaments while injuring his mother and
sisters.

Headnotes
Criminal law- Indian Penal Code,1860-Sections 395, 397-Criminal Procedure Code,1973-Section
374(2)-Dacoity and attempt to cause death-Inconsistent ocular testimony vs. medical evidence-
Testimonies from related witnesses (PW-1, PW-2, PW3) contained significant discrepancies
regarding number of dacoits, whether their faces were covered and the specific weapons
84 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
carried-The oral testimony of PW-3 alleging a knife injury was directly contradicted by medical
findings, which showed injuries caused only by hard and blunt objects-Furthermore, the
prosecution failed to prove the injury reports of the sisters of the informant-The investigation
was also found lacking as the Investigating Officer failed to collect empty cartridges from
alleged gunshots, broken locks, or any evidence of the cash proceeds (Rs. 6000/-) mentioned in
the FIR-Despite the arrest of the accused, no looted booty or ornaments were recovered from
them, undermining the prosecution's case.-The defense of false implication due to village partybandi and a prior criminal complaint filed by one of the accused against the informant was not
properly considered by the Trial Court-Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable
doubt-Acquittal of surviving appellants. Appeal allowed.(Para 16 to 29)
Held
The court held that conviction for dacoity unsustainable when the trial court fails to establish the factum of
the incident and relies on inconsistent ocular testimony that lacks corroboration from medical or investigative
evidence. The parties were co-villagers with a history of documented animosity, including a prior criminal
complaint filed by one of the accused against the informant and local political rivalry stemming from a
Pradhani election. Trial court erred to first determine if the incident actually occurred before assessing the
involvement of the accused. Hence, the conviction set aside. (E-6)

Case law Cited
Jitendra Kumar Mishra alias Jittu Vs State of M.P.(2024) 2 SCC 666-referred to.

List of Acts
Indian Penal Code,1860
Criminal Procedure Code,1973

List of Keywords
Dacoity, Grievous hurt, Ocular testimony, Related and Interested witnesses, Material inconsistencies, Medical
Discorroboration, Perfunctory investigation, Cartridges, Village Animosity, Ornaments, Benefit of doubt,
Identification in Torchlight, Abatement.

Case Arising from
 CRIMINAL JURISDICTION: CRIMINAL APPEAL No.- 2044 OF 1983
Ali Hasan & Ors Vs. State of U.P.
From the judgment and order dated 16.02.2026 of the High Court of judicature at Allahabad.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for Appellant(s) :-
Brij Raj, Narendra Kumar, Sanjive Kumar Gupta, Tejram
Adv. for Respondent(s):-
A.G.A.,

(Delivered by Hon'ble Avnish Saxena, J.)

1. Heard Sri Brij Raj and Sri Sanjive Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri
Chandra Badan, learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the record.

2. The oldest criminal appeal has been preferred by seven accused-appellants in the year 1983
under Section 374(2) CrPC from District Badaun, on being aggrieved by the judgment of
conviction and sentence passed by the court of Special Sessions Judge, Badaun on 29.08.1983 in
Special Sessions Trial No.157 of 1982, arising out of Case Crime No.321 reported on 27.07.1982 at
6:30 a.m. at Police Station Ujhani, District Badaun for offence under Section 395 (punishment for
2 All. Ali Hasan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
85
dacoity) and 397 (dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt), whereby the trial court has
convicted accused-appellants 1 to 3, Ali Hasan, Narain and Nandey, respectively for offence under
Section 395 I.P.C. and accused-appellants 4 to 7 Omkar, Harpal, Latoori, Mehndi, respectively for
offence under Sections 395 I.P.C. read with Section 397 I.P.C. Therefore, appellants Omkar,
Harpal, Latoori and Mehndi were punished for imprisonment of 7 years rigorous imprisonment,
whereas accused Ali Hasan, Narain and Nandey were punished with 5 years rigorous
imprisonment.

3. During the pendency of appeal, four appellants, Narain s/o Gindu, Nandey s/o Jhammn,
Omkar s/o Dhoom Singh and Mehndi s/o Chunni have passed away and by order dated 21.02.2019,
the appeal was abated for appellant no.2, Narain, appellant no.3 Nande, appellant no.4 Omkar and
appellant no.7 Mehndi.

4. The prosecution case has its genesis from the written information given by Dhanpal (P.W.-
1), scribed by Jagdish s/o Bhole Nath disclosing therein that in the intervening night of
26/27.07.1982 at about 1:00 a.m. while he and his brother, Ishwari, were sleeping in the cattle shed
near the house, they heard the shrieks of his mother and sisters. His brother Ishwari and he ran
towards the house accompanied by Nanhey Singh, Ram Lal, Prakash and other villagers with
lighted torch in their hands and found that the miscreants were beating their mother and sisters and
looting the valuables. The informant and other villagers including his brother have challenged the
miscreants, on which, the miscreants came out from the house, who have been identified in the
light of torch. Mehndi was carrying gun, Harpal, Omkar and Latoori had country-made pistols and
other accused were carrying lathi in their hands. While exiting the accused made two fires and
threatened the informant and other villagers, not to chase them. In exchange Ganga Ram has also
shot three fires from his licensed gun. The accused then sprinted away towards South. In the
dacoity, the mother and sisters of informant were badly injured. It is further revealed from the
F.I.R. that the informant was having cash of Rs 6,000/- at his residence. Rs.3,000/- was the
proceeds from onion sale and Rs.3,000/- was the advance money for selling his land. The accused
had looted Rs.3,000/-, but could not found other Rs.3,000/-, which was kept hidden. The accused
have also looted nine items. One Hasali of silver (2.450 gm); one Hasli silver (2.400 gm); one
phool for nose; one pair bara silver; 16 pair of lachche silver for toes; one pair pahunchi of silver;
one shirt taricoat yellow colour with lines; one Tehmad of Khadi white colour 2.25 meters; and one
Baniyan with sleeves of white colour. The F.I.R. further reveals that the accused had left at the
place of incident one lathi, one aguncha, one pair of shoes, one cheni and one summi. The
informant was accompanied to police station with his injured mother and sisters.

5. The F.I.R. got registered against seven named persons, who are residents of same village.

6. Smt. Jaya Devi (mother of informant) was examined at District Hospital Badaun on
27.07.1982 at 12:30 p.m. In the medical examination, the doctor found contusion and swelling 8
cm x 8 cm and lacerated wound 1cm x cm x1/4 cm in middle and left forearms (X-ray advised);
the second injury was lacerated wound 6cm x1/2 cms cm on middle of head, 7 cm above nasion;
and the third injury was contused swelling on dorsum of right hand with (X-ray advised). It is
mentioned that injury nos.1 and 3 are kept under observation and X-ray advised. Injury no.2 is
simple in nature and all the injuries are caused by hard and blunt object and duration is about
86 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
day. In supplementary medical report, it is found that there is fracture in the middle third of ulna
bone. This medical report is not exhibited.

7. Smt. Ishwarwati (sister of informant) was examined on the same day at 12:45 p.m. at
District Hospital Badaun. Three injuries were reported. Injury no.1 is lacerated wound 2 cm x 1
cm bone deep on the right side of forehead just above medial end of right eyebrow; the second
injury is contusion 3 cm x 1 cm on lateral side of right knee; and the third injury is contused
swelling on right side of upper lip. It is reported that all the injuries are simple in nature caused by
hard and blunt object with duration about half day old. This injury report is also not proved by the
prosecution. Nanhi the second sister of informant, though stated to be taken to the police station
and hospital, but her injuries have not been examined.

8. The charge has been framed on 18.01.1983 for offence under Section 395 I.P.C. against Ali
Hasan, Narain, Nandey, whereas, for offence under Section 395 I.P.C. read with Section 397 I.P.C.
against accused Omkar, Harpal, Latoori and Mehndi. They have denied the charge and opted for
trial.

9. The prosecution has placed Dhanpal as P.W.-1, who is informant of the case; Ishwari as
P.W.-2, brother of informant; Ishwarwati, P.W.-3 sister of informant and Nanhey, P.W.-4 as
independent witness. These four are the witnesses of fact. The prosecution has produced Shiv
Shankar Sharma, S.I., who has investigated the case, as P.W.-5.

10. The appellants have produced Shankar Lal, the village Pradhan as defence witness-1 and
in documentary evidence has filed, copy of application carrying the signatures of Sarpanch Jagat
Pal dated 10.02.1982 of Gram Panchayat Adwalganj, in Case No.1 of 1982, which was filed by
Mehndi Hasan against Dhanpal, Nanhe, Ramlal and Ram Prakash stating therein that on
10.01.1982 these accused had taken away two chenni, one summi, 15 Hathoras, 25 dhan, 5 sadasi,
total 48 items from the shop of Mehndi Hasan, who is a blacksmith and by doing this work, he used
to nurture his family.

11. It is submitted by the learned counsel for these surviving appellants that the trial court in
its judgment has not deliberated on the point whether in actuality dacoity took place in the house of
Dhanpal. On the contrary, the trial Judge has presumed that the dacoity took place in the house of
Dhanpal. The only point deliberated by the trial judge is about the involvement of accused in the
said dacoity. Further submits that all the witnesses of fact produced by the prosecution are related
and interested witnesses, namely, P.W.-1 Dhanpal, P.W.-2 Ishwari and P.W.-3 Ishwarwati are real
brothers and sister. Moreover, there is inconsistency in the statements. Ishwarwati P.W.-3 has
stated that accused Harpal, Omkar and Ali Hasan had beaten her, who have been identified by her,
whereas, P.W.-4 Nanhey has identified Mehndi, Ali Hasan and Harpal. He has stated to be with the
informant, whereas, the informant has identified all the seven accused, though in his examinationin-chief, he has stated that there were 10 to 11 dacoits, who entered his house for dacoity.
Therefore, the witnesses are not reliable, but were considered as reliable by the trial court. Further
submits that the trial court must have considered evidence on record on the point of dacoity being
committed or not in the house of Dhanpal because without deciding the basic question of
committing of dacoity, the accused-appellants cannot be convicted for committing dacoity. Further
2 All. Ali Hasan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
87
submits that the F.I.R. version if considered to be true, there were five gun shots fires at the place
of incident; two fires were shot by the dacoits and three fires by the Ganga Ram through his
licensed gun. Ganga Ram has never been produced before the trial court. Even his licensed gun was
not checked to see that the fire has been shot from his licensed gun or empty cartridges were
collected. The Investigating Officer has neither collected any document pertaining to proposed sale
of land by the informant and getting the advance of Rs.3,000/- nor the same is produced before the
court. In the same way, the proceed of Rs.3,000/- from the sale of onion is also not examined by the
Investigating Officer, which has been narrated specially in the F.I.R. Further submits that the
accused-appellants are of same village and are family persons. The trial court has negated this
argument of the accused-appellants that the persons of same village can never commit dacoity bare
faced if they are not known dacoits and the accused appellants had no criminal history. Further
submits that the trial judge has also negated the arguments of the accused that they have been
falsely implicated in the case due to village party-bandi and previous animosity nurtured by the
informant Dhanpal and scribe of F.I.R. Jagdish. Lastly, because of Pradhani election, wherein the
candidate of accused, namely, Shankar Lal D.W.-1 was declared victorious and the candidate of the
informant, namely, Ram Prakash was defeated in the election was the cause of false implication.
Further submits that there is no recovery of the booty. The informant has specifically stated about
the weapons, accused were carrying and has stated that Mehndi was carrying gun, Harpal, Omkar
and Latoori had countrymade pistols and all others were carrying lathis, which means that three
accused were carrying lathi. If the three accused carrying lathi were seen while exiting from the
house of informant then how a lathi was left by the accused in the house of informant. Further
submits that the informant has not stated anything about the bundle, wherein the booty was carried
away by the accused and who was carrying that bundle. Further submits that the accused-appellants
have been falsely implicated in the case of dacoity, who are of same village and four of the
appellants have already passed away and surviving appellants are more than 70 years of age.
Hence, submitted that the accused-appellants be acquitted in the false case of dacoity and their
appeal be allowed.

12. Learned counsel has relied on the judgments of Balbir and others Vs. State of U.P.
decided on 09.07.2020 in Criminal Appeal No.648 of 1983 (relied particularly paragraph nos.6, 9,
10, 11, 12), Ram Singh Vs. State decided on 31.08.2018 in Criminal Appeal No.3152 of 1982
(relied particularly paragraph nos.7, 8, 11, 19, 20, 21) and Rama Shanker and another Vs. State of
U.P. decided on 19.07.2022 in Criminal Appeal No.2269 of 1982 (relied particularly paragraph
nos.18, 20, 21, 22, 23). The judgments of Balbir (supra) and Rama Shanker (supra) are not
applicable in the present set of facts because in these judgments the issue was dacoity by less than
five persons.

13. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State submits that the F.I.R. has been lodged by the
P.W.-1 Dhanpal against seven persons, who have been identified while exiting the house of
informant. The injured witness Ishwarwati and independent witness Nanhey have specifically
identified three accused each. Ali Hasan and Harpal have been identified by both of these
witnesses, whereas, Omkar is identified by P.W.-3 Ishwarwati and Mehndi is identified by P.W.-4
Nanhey. The involvement of accused-appellants and their committing dacoity is explicit from the
statement of witnesses. It is a general trend of the society that all the persons, who have seen the
incident of dacoity, are not inclined to appear as witness in court, because they fear rivalry and the
88 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
accused-appellants are of same village. Further submits that the trial court has rightly appreciated
the evidences adduced by the prosecution and recorded conviction. Further submits that the torch
light was sufficient to identify the accused. The police has prepared the memo of recovery of torch
and its return recovered from Nanhey Singh, Ram Lal, Ram Prakash, Nanhey Ram and Dhanpal.
Further submits that the lantern was lit in the house of Dhanpal, which was the source of light to
identify the accused. Even if there is no source of light, the villagers could easily identify covillagers. The point of false implication has rightly been dealt by the trial court in the judgment,
considering that the witnesses were not aware whether the accused-appellants are the man of
Shankar Lal, village Pradhan and negated political or village rivalry between the two. Therefore,
submitted that the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

14. This Court has taken into consideration the rival submissions made by the parties and
perused the record.

15. The point of concern in the present appeal is whether the learned trial judge has rightly
appreciated the evidence on record and convicted accused-appellants for the offence of dacoity and
attempt to cause death or grievous hurt for attempting dacoity.

16. The trial court at the very start of judgment has made observation that the factum of
dacoity is not a subject of any controversy. This observation has been made because according to
the trial judge, the factum of dacoity has not been challenged by the accused. This observation of
the learned trial judge is against the basic principles of law of appreciation of evidence, because the
accused-appellants at the very start of the trial have denied the allegations of committing dacoity in
the house of informant Dhanpal, moreso, they have stated false implication because of party
politics and previous enmity between them. Therefore, it is the first and foremost duty of trial court
to look into the evidences as to where the incident of dacoity took place in the house of informant
Dhanpal.

17. Certain glaring facts, which is derived from the evidence adduced by the prosecution like
F.I.R., the site plan and the statements of witnesses of fact, are pointed out below:-

I. P.W.-1 Dhanpal, the informant has stated in his examination-in-chief that there were 10
to 11 dacoits entered his house for committing dacoity, though in the written information the
specific names of only seven dacoits, who belong to the same village, were named. P.W.-3
Ishwarwati also stated the number of dacoits as seven, who have committed dacoity. It is found in
the statement of Ishwarwati P.W.-3 that the dacoits have fired from the gun during the course of
dacoity, whereas, P.W.-1 Dhanpal has stated that while exiting after the dacoity, the dacoits had
fired two shots and in retaliation Ganga Ram has fired three shots. The investigating Officer has not
collected the pellets and empty cartridges of the bullets shot either by the accused or by Ganga
Ram. It is specifically averted in the written information as well as in the statement of P.W.-1
Dhanpal that Ganga Ram had fired shot from his licensed gun. The main purpose of inspecting the
gun of Ganga Ram by Investigating Officer was to look into the veracity of the statement of
informant whether or not dacoity took place in the intervening night of 26/27.07.1982.
2 All. Ali Hasan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
89

II. The Investigating Officer has also not collected the broken lock, which was stated to
be broken by the dacoits, while committing dacoity.

III. The Investigating Officer has not investigated on the point of informant having
Rs.6,000/- as cash at his residence, which the informant has specifically stated to have received
from the proceed of selling onion and received as advance for selling his land, which is stated to be
the reason for committing dacoity in the house of informant.

IV. The informant Dhanpal has mentioned in the F.I.R. and stated in his statement that
P.W.-1, with precision stated about the weapons being carried by the accused-appellants. Like,
Mehndi was carrying gun, Harpal, Omkar and Latoori had countrymade pistols and other accused
were having lathis in their hands. The Investigating Officer P.W.-5 Shiv Shankar Sharma, S.I. has
made the memo of recovery of all the items, which were stated to be left by the accused-appellants
at the house of informant and lathi was one of the item. If the lathi is left in the house then how the
informant has seen lathi in the hands of three accused. Contrary to this, P.W.-3 Smt. Ishwarwati has
stated that one of the accused was having knife in his hand and she got injury by knife. It is to be
made clear at this juncture that Ishwarwati did not suffer knife injury, as is reflected from her
medico legal examination carried out at District Hospital Badaun. This medico legal examination is
not proved by the prosecution, but is on record and reveals that all the injuries to Ishwarwati were
simple in nature and caused by hard and blunt object.

V. The point of concern in respect to the dacoity is also reflected from the bare perusal of
F.I.R., which reveals that nearly 9 items have been looted by the dacoits, but none of the witnesses
have seen the bundle of those items and how the accused have carried it. This fact is neither
reflected from the statement of P.W.-1 Dhanpal nor from the statement of P.W.-3 Smt. Ishwarwati,
who was stated to be inside the house.

18. All these points are the matter of concern and the trial judge has not examined the
evidence on the point whether the dacoity took place in the house of informant Dhanpal or the
accused-appellants, who are of same village have falsely been implicated in a fake dacoity. All the
above mentioned infirmities in the evidence are material in nature, because at one hand, it is the
dacoity, which has been carried out and on other hand, the accused-appellants stating false
implication.

19. The trial judge while appreciating the evidence has given credence to the testimony of
witnesses of fact, who have specifically named the accused-appellants, for committing dacoity,
without considering the veracity of statement of witnesses through their cross-examination.

20. Hence, the statement of witnesses are required to be dealt with one by one.

21. P.W.-1 Dhanpal has stated that in the intervening night of 26/27.07.1982, there was
dacoity at his residence. He was sleeping at the cattle shed when he heard the shrieks of his mother
and sisters, hearing which, he came to the house. There is nothing on record either in the site plan
to show where the cattle shed is situated, wherein the informant Dhanpal and Ishwari were sleeping
or whether there is possibility of hearing the shrieks of his family members, coming from his house
90 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to the place where he was sleeping. He further submits that hearing the shrieks of his mother and
sisters, he along with his brother Ishwari, Nanhey Singh, Ram Lal, Prakash and other villagers lit
their torches and ran towards the house and found that dacoits were beating his mother and sisters
and looting the valuables. This statement shows that this witness has entered the house while the
dacoits were committing the dacoity. During his cross-examination, he has admitted that the scribe
of F.I.R. Jagdish is the son of Bhole. There was dacoity in the house of Bhole some 12 years back,
wherein the father of accused Harpal was made accused, but was acquitted by the court. Further
submits that in the recent Pradhani election, he stated to have supported Ram Prakash, who has lost
to Shankar Lal, but has no idea whether Narain, Omkar, Nandey and Latoori were on the side of
Shankar Lal. The village party politics and political rivalry has been stated behind the false
implication. He further stated that he knew all the accused and their families. He has also stated that
Rajwati is daughter of Ram Lal, but has no idea whether the sister of Latoori has entered into the
some land deal with Rajwati, which was not finalized and there was dispute between the two
pertaining to return of advance amount. He has stated to have seen the incident from the door of
Ram Lal and Ishwari was with him. According to the site plan, two houses of Ram Lal are situated
on the north of the lane and the door of one house is shown open towards east on north south lane
of the lane and the second house of Ram Lal the door is open towards south of east west lane. The
house of this witness is situated on the south of the lane and the doors of his house was shown open
towards east on north south lane. The site plan further shows that the accused-appellants had exited
from this door, which is opening on east and went away towards South. If it is taken to be true that
the witnesses were standing at the door of the house of Ram Lal, either the western or eastern
house, they could not see the faces of accused. Moreover, the place where witnesses have seen the
accused is not shown in the site plan. P.W.-3 Ishwarwati has stated that four of the accused were
covering their faces and therefore, she could not see the faces of other accused except Harpal,
Omkar and Ali Hasan, who had beaten her. P.W.-1 further stated that after the incident of dacoity,
Mehndi Hasan has filed a compliant at Panchayat. This complaint has not been taken into
consideration by the learned trial judge, which is exhibited as Kha-1. The copy of complaint reveals
that it is filed by Ali Hasan, the blacksmith against Dhanpal, Nanhey, Ram Lal, Ram Prakash for
the incident dated 10.01.1982 for the theft of his Chenni, Summi, Hathora, ghan and sadasi, which
was witnessed by Lakhi and Murari. The trial Judge has observed that there is no date and time
mentioned in the application about its moving, but it contains the signature of Jagpal, Sarpanch
with the date 10.02.1982 and it is the copy of complaint, which is registered as Case No.1 of 1982.
Therefore, this application is prior to the date of occurrence.

22. P.W.-2 Ishwari has stated that the dacoits have fired during dacoity; his mother did not
disclose the name of any dacoit; his sister suffered knife injury; seven dacoits entered the house,
they were carrying guns, lathis and knives; he has not stated about the accused carrying
countrymade pistols, which is stated by P.W.-1 Dhanpal, but stated about the knife being carried by
the accused merely because P.W.-3 Ishwarwati has stated that she has suffered knife injuries.

23. Ishwarwati P.W.-3 has stated to have suffered knife injury and not the injury by the lathi.
Her medical examination reveals that she suffered; (1) lacerated wound 2 cm x 1 cm bone deep
on right side forehead just above medial end of eyebrow; (2) contusion 3 cm x 1 cm on lateral
side of right knee; and (3) contused swelling on right side of upper lip. As all the injuries were
caused by hard and blunt objects, as per the opinion of the doctor mentioned in the medico legal
2 All. Ali Hasan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
91
examination, the injuries does not corroborate with the statement of this witness; she further stated
that she did not suffer any injury when the dacoits have snatched her hasli from her neck.

24. P.W.-4 Nanhey has stated that he could identify only three persons, namely, Mehndi, Ali
Hasan and Harpal. Mehndi was holding gun, Ali Hasan and Harpal were carrying countrymade
pistol. During his cross-examination, he has stated that Dhanpal is his brother by virtue of caste. He
has also stated that out of seven dacoits, three were identified and four had covered their faces.
Hence, could not be identified.

25. If the statement of all witnesses of fact is taken into consideration, then the points which is
culled out from their statements are material inconsistencies on the point of covering of face by the
accused, holding the weapon and injuries caused, where P.W.-1 Dhanpal has stated both his sisters
had suffered injuries, in his written information and in his statement before the court, he stated that
only Ishwarwati and his mother suffered injuries. The accused-appellants are of same village and
they are known to the informant and witnesses, most of them are labours and were inimical to the
informant, because of recent Pradhani election or the previous complaint or because of land deal. It
is hard to believe that the accused, who are having their families in the village, will enter the house
of any person of the village bare faced to commit dacoity. Moreover, despite the arrest of the
accused, there was no recovery of any item of dacoity. The Investigating Officer has collected only
the torch from the witnesses and returned it to them on the same day. The recovery of torch is not
sufficient evidence that the witnesses have identified the dacoits.

26. After marshalling the entire evidence on record, this Court found material inconsistencies
in the testimonies of witnesses, the benefit of which should be given to the accused. Moreover, the
accused-appellants were not the known dacoits, against whom any other case of dacoity was
registered, who would fearlessly to enter the houses bare faced. Thus, the observation of the trial
judge is not appealing the conscience.

27. In the case of Jitendra Kumar Mishra alias Jittu Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh Hon'ble
the Supreme Court held that an appellate court should be slow in interfering with conviction
recorded by courts below but where evidence on record indicates that prosecution has failed to
prove guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt and that a plausible view, different from one
expressed by trial court, can be taken. The appellate court should not shy away in giving benefit of
doubt to the accused.

28. Therefore, the surviving appellants cannot be held guilty for offence of dacoity or any
other minor offence and liable to be acquitted for the offence of dacoity and attempt to cause death
or grievous hurt, while committing dacoity, giving benefit of doubt, as the trial court has
incorrectly adduced evidence. Thus, the judgment of conviction dated 29.08.1983 in Special
Sessions Trial No.157 of 1982, arising out of Case Crime No.321, reported on 27.07.1982 for
offences under Sections 395, 397 IPC at Police Station Ujhani, District Badaun, is set aside.

29. The appeal is allowed. The appellant no.1 Ali Hasan is acquitted for offence under Section
395 I.P.C.; whereas, appellant no.5 Harpal and appellant no.6 Latoori are acquitted of offence
under Sections 395 read with 397 IPC.
92 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

30. Record be remitted back forthwith alongwith the copy of judgment.
----------
(2026) 2 ILRA 92
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

First Appeal No. 94 of 2026

K. P. Pankaj (Keshav Prasad Pankaj) Government Contactor & Suppliers ...Appellant
Versus
Chairman, Distric Urban Development Authority ...Respondent

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial court was justified in rejecting
the plaint under O. VII R. 11 C.P.C. on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, instead of returning the
plaint for presentation before the competent court under O. VII R. 10 C.P.C., particularly when the dispute, as
per the terms of the tender, was exclusively triable by the court at Kushinagar.

Headnotes
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - ss. 20, 96, O.VII R.10, O.VII R.11 - Return of plaint - Jurisdiction
clause in Contract - Territorial Jurisdiction - Scope of - Maintainability of Suit - The instant First
Appeal u/s 96 C.P.C. has been preferred by the plaintiff - appellant against the judgment and
decree whereby the trial court rejected the plaint under O. VII R. 11 C.P.C. on the ground of lack
of territorial jurisdiction - The case of plaintiff is that pursuant to a tender floated by the
defendants, the plaintiff firm was awarded several work orders for supply of construction
materials, which were duly supplied; however, a substantial amount allegedly remained unpaid,
giving rise to a claim for recovery along with interest - The defendants contested the
maintainability of the suit at Gorakhpur by filing an application under O. VII R. 11 C.P.C.,
contending that no cause of action arose within its territorial jurisdiction and that, as per the
terms of the tender, disputes were triable exclusively at Kushinagar - The trial court accepted
the objection and rejected the plaint, leading to the instant appeal before High Court challenging
the legality of such rejection.
Held: It is apparent that as per the terms and conditions of the tender, the dispute was only entertainable by
the District Court, Kushinagar, as such, the suit was not maintainable before the District Court, Gorakhpur -
Neither the office of defendant no.3 was situated in District Gorakhpur, nor any cause of action ever arose
within the territorial jurisdiction of District Court Gorakhpur, as such, the trial court has not erred insofar as
concluding that the District Court, Gorakhpur had no jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit, but the trial court
has erred in not returning the plaint to the plaintiff under O. 7 R. 10 CPC for presenting before the competent
court of jurisdiction -The trial court has erred in rejecting the plaint under O. 7 R. 11 CPC, which was not at all
attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case - Thus, impugned judgment and decree dated 02.04.2025
is affirmed but the decision of rejecting the plaint is set aside - Accordingly, appeal partly allowed.
[Paras 19, 24, 25] (E-13)

Case Law Cited
Exl Careers and another v. Frankfinn Aviation Services Private Limited (2020) 12 SCC 667 (By 3 Judges) -
referred to