# Mahesh Tripathi v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 270
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-24
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 11406 of 2025
- **Bench:** Abdul Shahid
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mahesh-tripathi-v-state-of-u-p-anr-54501
- **Pages:** 13

## Text

_Characters 0–39,943 of 43,564. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39943 for what follows._

270 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

30. The collective findings of these judgments and law laid down in Section 9 of Indian Evidence
Act,1972(Section 7 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) establishes that the primary purpose of a
Test Identification Parade (TIP) or the identification of property under this section is to provide corroborative
value to the investigation; it is not a substantive piece of evidence that can stand alone as be the basis of
conviction. In the eyes of law, identification is a matter of opinion and memory, which are susceptible to
error, influence, or suggestion, especially when the object in question is a common article like a shawl. A
"weak" or"corroborative" piece of evidence as per Section 9 requires the support of other strong, independent
links to complete the chain of circumstances. Therefore, the evidence of the shawl, being corroborative in
nature, is insufficient to establish the guilt of the accused.

31.In view of the aforesaid discussions and the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view
that the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court in the impugned judgment are not in conformity with the
evidence on record. The prosecution case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence; however, the chain of
circumstances is far from complete. Notably, the recovery of the "shawl" is highly doubtful and lacks
evidentiary value. Furthermore, the serious lapses in the investigation process and the lack of independent
witnesses create a significant gap in the prosecution's version of events. The learned Trial Judge failed to
appreciate that in a case of circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be of a conclusive nature, leaving
no room for any other hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. Consequently, the judgment of conviction
of learned trial Court is found to be unsustainable in the eyes of the law and is liable to be set aside.

32. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, and the judgment of conviction is hereby set aside.

33. The appellant is in jail. If the appellant is not required in any other case, he be released forthwith.

34. Let a copy of the judgment and order alongwith trial court record be sent to the concerned Chief
Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court for compliance.

35. Before parting with the judgment, I would like to express my appreciation to my Research
Associate, Ms. Anjali Singh for her thorough research and assistance to the Court in the instant case.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 270
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 11406 of 2025

Mahesh Tripathi ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
4 All. Mahesh Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
271
Matter pertains to whether, in an appeal under S. 14-A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the summoning order, charge sheet and entire proceedings arising out of
offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 were liable to be set aside on account of material inconsistencies in the
F.I.R., statements recorded during investigation, and reliance on CCTV footage contrary to the ocular version.
(Paras 7-10, 32-63)

Headnotes
Criminal Law - Quashing of proceedings - Maintainability of appeal - Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - S. 14-A (1) - Scope of appellate
jurisdiction - High Court has jurisdiction to review the order passed by the Special Court on both
facts and law - Appeal held maintainable against summoning order and consequential
proceedings. (Paras 9-10)
Criminal Law - Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 -
Ss. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(5a) - Investigation - Material inconsistencies in prosecution case -
F.I.R. lodged on the next day of the incident - Complainant repeatedly changed version in
statements recorded under S. 161 Cr.P.C. and altered role assigned to named accused - Genesis
of prosecution case materially altered during investigation - Serious doubt raised on prosecution
story. (Paras 22-25, 30-38, 53-58)
Criminal Procedure - Appreciation of evidence at stage of cognizance - Ocular evidence and CCTV
footage - CCTV footage without audio relied upon during investigation - Complainant and injured
witness changed earlier ocular versions after viewing CCTV footage - CCTV footage ultimately
became basis of charge sheet - Ocular statements and subsequent statements based on CCTV
footage found contradictory - Reliance on such inconsistent material held to cast serious doubt
on prosecution case. (Paras 35-49, 54-60)
Criminal Law - Quashing of charge sheet and summoning order - Contradictory statements of
complainant and injured witness - Inherent inconsistencies going to root of matter - No person
permitted to invoke process of law according to his own wishes, surmises and conjectures -
Impugned summoning order and entire proceedings against appellant set aside and quashed.
(Paras 61-64)
Practice and Procedure - Judicial terminology - Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Special Court - Expression court below - Supreme Court
directions regarding use of terminology Trial Court Record (TCR) instead of Lower Court Record
(LCR) - Court observed that terminology court below may be replaced with trial court or
concerned court. (Paras 65-70)
Held: The present matter is a criminal appeal under S. 14-A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 wherein the High Court has jurisdiction to review the order passed
by the Special Court on both facts and law - the complainant is neither illiterate nor uneducated rather he is a
responsible person holding the position of Chairman of the Zila Panchayat and from 29.06.2025 to 21.07.2025
and thereafter on 19.09.2025 there have been material changes in his statements - the entire genesis of the
prosecution case has been materially altered during the course of investigation - the complainant and the
injured witness have consistently changed their versions from their earlier statements under S. 161 Cr.P.C. as
well as from the contents of the F.I.R. - the State has relied more upon the CCTV footage than the ocular
evidence and the CCTV footage does not contain any audio - the complainant has thereby denied and
materially departed from the ocular averments made at the time of registration of the F.I.R. and in his earlier
statements - the ocular statement of the complainant and the injured witness and their subsequent
statements after seeing CCTV recording are contradictory - it is the ocular evidence which has to prevail and
reliance on statements after seeing CCTV footage raises serious doubt on entire prosecution story - the
statement of the complainant suffers from inherent inconsistencies and no person is permitted to invoke the
process of law according to his own wishes surmises and conjectures - the subsequent improvements and
inconsistencies in the prosecution story cannot be judicially accepted - the impugned summoning order is set
aside and the entire proceedings against the appellant are quashed - Appeal allowed. (Paras 10, 32-38, 45-49,
58-64) (E-7)
272 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Case Law Cited
State of Gujarat Versus Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta passed in Criminal Appeal No. 224 of 2019 dated
05.02.2019; Sakhawat and Another v. State of U.P. in SLP (Criminal) No. 1936 of 2019 dated 08.02.2024.

List of Acts
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

List of Keywords
Summoning order; charge sheet; criminal appeal; Special Court; cognizance; F.I.R.; delay in lodging F.I.R.;
material inconsistencies; ocular evidence; CCTV footage; statements under S. 161 Cr.P.C.; caste-based
remarks; tender process; prosecution story; contradictory statements; investigation; quashing of proceedings;
inherent inconsistencies; public view; Special Case; Trial Court Record.

Case Arising From
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal under S. 14-A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 14.10.2025 passed by the
Special Judge (SC/ST Act)/Additional District & Sessions Judge, Mahoba in Special Case No. 86 of 2025 and
seeking quashing of the charge sheet, summoning order and entire proceedings arising out of Case Crime No.
0277 of 2025.

Appearances for Parties

Advs. for the Appellant:
Sri H.N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Vineet Kumar Singh.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Sri Vinay Saran, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Avijit Saxena for Respondent No. 2; Sri Acharya
Rajesh Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Abdul Shahid, J.)

1. Heard Sri H.N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Vineet Kumar Singh,
learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Vinay Saran, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Avijit
Saxena, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 and Sri Acharya Rajesh Tripathi, learned A.G.A.
for the State.

2. The present Criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the Scheduled Castes Act and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed against the impugned order
dated 14.10.2025 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act)/Additional District & Sessions Judge,
Mahoba in Special Case No.86 of 2025 (State Vs. Mahesh Tiwari and Another) under Sections
221, 132, 352, 351(2), 127(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s),
3(2)(5a) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
arising out of Case Crime No.0277 of 2025, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Mahoba and the
entire proceedings of Special Case No.86 of 2025 (State Vs. Mahesh Tiwari and Another) pending
in the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Mahoba.

3. The genesis of the case, as per the complainant/opposite party no. 2, Jai Prakash Anuragi, is
that he lodged an F.I.R. regarding an incident dated 28.06.2025 at 16:50 hours. The F.I.R. was
registered with a delay on 29.06.2025 at 13:26 hours under Sections 221, 132, 352, and 351(2) of
4 All. Mahesh Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
273
the IPC, and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act, 1989. The complainant
lodged the F.I.R. against two accused persons, namely, (1) Mahesh Tiwari, son of unknown, and
(2) Ankit Shukla, son of Devendra Shukla.

4. It is stated in the complaint that on 28.06.2025, during the tender process at the Zila
Panchayat, when documents were being deposited in the tender box, at about 4:50 p.m., Mahesh
Tiwari (resident of Kabrai, Mahoba) and Ankit Shukla (resident near Vikas Bhawan, Mahoba),
along with their associates, entered the premises and approached the tender box. They allegedly
instructed that water be poured into the box. Upon protest by a government employee present there,
Mahesh Tiwari pushed the employee aside, while Ankit Shukla allegedly caught hold of the
complainant/Jai Prakash Anuragi from behind and abused him using caste-based remarks in a loud
voice and said where is Kuriya Chairman.

5. On hearing this noise, the complainant, along with Zila Panchayat member Shri Mrityunjay
Pratap Ahirwar, came out and questioned the accused. It is further alleged that Mahesh Tiwari
threatened the complainant and used caste-based remarks against both the complainant and the said
member, and thereafter left the spot, extending threats of future consequences.

6. The present criminal appeal has been filed against the summoning order dated 14.10.2025
issued after submission of the charge sheet against the appellant, Mahesh Tiwari. The charge sheet
was also filed against Shailendra Singh, who is not before this Court.

7. At the outset, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 raised a preliminary objection that
the summoning order has been issued on the basis of the investigation, followed by submission of
the charge sheet; hence, the relief sought by the appellant for quashing of the charge sheet, the
summoning order, and the entire proceedings is not liable to be quashed.

8. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2/complainant had relied on the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Gujarat Versus Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta (reportable
judgement) passed in Criminal Appeal No. 224 of 2019 dated 05.02.2019. The said appeal was
filed before the Honb'ble Supreme Court against the order of the High Court of Gujarat dated
03.05.2017 allowing the Criminal Revision No.264 of 2017 and by which the High Court has set
aside the order dated 15.11.2014 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Surat by which the
Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468,
471, 477A and 120-B IPC on the basis of the second supplementary charge sheet filed by the police
in Criminal Case No.62851/2014 and ordered issuance of process to the respondent-accused. The
impugned judgment which was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was against the
criminal revision.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant has objected that the present criminal appeal is
maintainable and the entire relief sought by him in the said appeal could be granted by this Court.
This is not a criminal revision rather this is a criminal appeal under section 14-A(1) of the
Scheduled Castes Act and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. (later referred as
'Act, 1989' for the sake of brevity). It is as follows:
274 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

'Section 14A. Appeals.'(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal
Procedure,1973 (2 of 1974), (corresponding B.N.S.S., 2023) an appeal shall lie, from any
judgment, sentence or order, not being an interlocutory order, of a Special Court or an Exclusive
Special Court, to the High Court both on facts and on law.'

10. There is legal force in the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant.
Undoubtedly, the present matter is a criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, wherein the High Court has
jurisdiction to review the order passed by the Special Court, as defined under the said provision, on
both facts and law.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is a considerable delay in
lodging the F.I.R. The opposite party is neither illiterate nor uneducated; rather, he is the Chairman
of the Zila Panchayat. The F.I.R. was lodged against Mahesh Tiwari (appellant) as well as Ankit
Shukla; however, no specific role was subsequently assigned to Ankit Shukla, who has been
exonerated during the investigation, and no charge sheet has been filed against him. Ankit Shukla
was named in the F.I.R. along with the name of his father; hence, it may be presumed that Jai
Prakash Anuragi (opposite party no. 2) was well aware of him. The F.I.R. was lodged on the next
day of the incident, with a delay of approximately 24 hours.

12. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that there are material
inconsistencies in the statements made by the complainant during the investigation, and none of the
independent witnesses has supported his version.

13. It is further submitted that as per the complainant's own averments, the ingredients of the
offences under the SC/ST Act could not be fulfilled as the alleged incident did not occur in a public
view. It is contended that the Chairman came out of his chamber only for two minutes and returned
shortly thereafter. It is also alleged that the complainant did not want the appellant to participate as
a competitor in the tender process and attempted to prevent him from submitting his tender.

14. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has submitted that there is consistency
in the complainant's statements and there is ocular evidence supporting the prosecution case. It is
further submitted that the appellant has failed to prove any motive, prima facie case is made out
against him and the charge sheet has been duly filed and cognizance taken by the learned Special
Court. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal is liable to be dismissed.

15. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the appellant is a contractor
registered with various departments. A tender notice inviting e-tender/e-auction was published by
the Zila Panchayat, Mahoba on 11.06.2025 for various tender items and last extended date was
fixed 28.06.2025 on that date the appellant went to submit his tender in the tender box. The
appellant though is qualified for submitting his tender but was being illegally prevented from
submitting his tender in the tender box because the Chairman of Zila Panchayat i.e. the informant
was interested in handing over the contract to the person of his choice and for that purpose, he was
preventing the appellant from submitting the tender and thereafter to participate in bid. The
appellant showed his objection for not permitting to submit the tender, consequently, the Chairman
4 All. Mahesh Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
275
of Zila Panchayat i.e. the informant became annoyed and in spite of that, the appellant had
submitted the tender, hence the informant has lodged an FIR.

16. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the statement of the
complainant was recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. but he has failed to make any statement about
the specific use of language relating to caste and further, it is not disputed that the alleged incident
has not taken place in public view but is said to have happened in the office of the Zila Panchayat.

17. The statement of the complainant/opposite party no. 2 was first recorded on 29.06.2025
under Section 161 Cr.P.C., wherein he stated that Mahesh Tiwari threatened a government
employee and pushed him, while Ankit Shukla caught hold of the complainant from behind and,
after issuing threats, hurled abuses and used casteist remarks, stating, 'Where is that Kuriya
Chairman'' This was heard inside, whereupon the complainant and his associate, Mrityunjay Pratap
Ahirwar, came outside and questioned the accused as to why they were abusing. Thereafter,
Mahesh Tiwari and Ankit Shukla allegedly said, 'Kuriya, we will see, how you run the Zila
Panchayat,' and further addressed Mrityunjay Pratap Ahirwar, who was standing beside the
complainant, with caste-based remarks, threatening him as well. Thereafter, they left the place after
extending threats.

18. The informant further stated that Mahesh Tiwari and Ankit Shukla had threatened the
government employee, Ram Milan Verma, and had interfered with the tender process and official
work. He also stated that the CCTV footage could be examined for verification. In response to a
specific query as to how he knew Mahesh Tiwari and Ankit Shukla, the informant stated that he
had known both of them for a long time and that they were well acquainted with each other,
including knowledge of each other's caste.

19. In reply to a further question as to whether any physical assault (marpeet) had taken place
with him or any other person, he stated that no such incident had occurred. When asked whether he
was willing to undergo a medical examination, he stated that, since no physical assault had taken
place, he did not wish to undergo any medical examination of his own accord.

20. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that another relevant witness, Shiv
Shankar Vyas, who was posted as Nazir in the office of the Zila Panchayat, has narrated the
incident dated 28.06.2025 only to the extent of submission of the tender and has not supported the
allegations made by the Chairman of the Zila Panchayat regarding the use of caste-related language
or any humiliation on the basis of caste.

21. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that another relevant statement of
Ram Milan an employee of the Zila Panchayat do admit that the appellant had got an apprehension
that he is being prevented from submitting his tender, in the circumstances, he was caught hold by
Ankit Shukla and the appellant has submitted his tender in tender box but regarding other alleged
incident of use of language relating to caste was not supported by Ram Milan and Rajesh Kumar.

22. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the police recorded the
statement of Opposite Party No. 2/complainant on 21.07.2025 vide CD-8, wherein he stated that he
276 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
had omitted to mention the name of Ravi Tiwari in the First Information Report along with the
appellant and Ankit Shukla, and that Ravi Tiwari was also present at the scene of occurrence. In
this regard, a true copy of the statement of the complainant recorded vide CD-8 dated 21.07.2025,
along with the statement of witness Mrityunjay, has been jointly filed by the appellant.

23. Further, the third statement of the informant was recorded by the Investigating Officer on
19.09.2025 vide CD-17, wherein he stated that Ankit Shukla, who was earlier alleged to have
caught hold of Ram Milan Verma, was not present at the scene of occurrence, and that the person
who had caught hold of Ram Milan Verma was some other individual. He further stated that Ankit
Shukla was not involved in the offence.

24. The statement of Ram Milan Verma was again recorded on 19.09.2025, wherein he also
changed the prosecution version by stating that Ankit Shukla was not the person who had caught
hold of him, but that the said person was Shailendra Singh, the driver of Mahesh Tiwari.

25. After concluding the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet on
22.09.2025 against the appellant and Shailendra Singh, and concluded that Ankit Shukla and Ravi
Tiwari were not involved in the alleged offence and were not present at the scene of occurrence.

26. Learned A.G.A. has filed a counter affidavit sworn by Arun Kumar Singh, who is the
Circle Officer (City), District Mahoba. He has deposed that the Zila Panchayat, Mahoba, had
invited tenders on 11.06.2025, and the last extended date for submission was fixed as 28.06.2025.
On that date, the appellant and other persons were present at about 4:50 p.m.

27. It is further submitted that the Investigating Officer conducted further investigation. On
06.09.2025, the deponent, being the Deputy Superintendent of Police, was given charge of the
Circle (City), and the investigation of the present case was taken up by him on 08.09.2025.
Thereafter, the case diary and other evidence were examined. In the course of investigation, further
statements of the complainant, Shri Jaiprakash Anuragi, the victim, and other witnesses were
recorded. The CCTV footage of the spot was also examined and the site was inspected.

28. During investigation, it was found that on 28.06.2025, in the premises of the District
Panchayat, Mahoba, after being pushed by the accused Mahesh Tiwari, the victim Ram Milan
Verma above was pushed.

29. The person who hold the above mentioned person, it was Ankit Shukla son of Devendra
Shukla has been told to be some other person Shailendra Singh (driver of Mahesh Tiwari) and the
person involved (holding) has been identified by the accused and witnesses as Shailendra Singh,
the complainant and witnesses above have confirmed that Ankit Shukla son of Devendra Shukla
above named and Ravi Tiwari son of Ram Manohar Tiwari above named who came to light, were
not involved (participants) in the said incident. From the consideration of CCTV footage related to
the above mentioned case, all the persons seen except the named Mahesh Tiwari and Shailendra
Singh above named were found to be in normal posture and their expressions appeared to be
normal.
4 All. Mahesh Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
277

30. Thereafter, Ankit Shukla and accused Ravi Tiwari have been exonerated and the charge
sheet was filed against Shailendra singh and Mahesh Tiwari and section 127(1) B.N.S. has been
added. The Investigation Officer had relied on the third statement of the complainant under section
161 Cr.P.C. (corresponding section 180 B.N.S.S., 2023) dated 19.09.2025 where in the third
statement of the complainant, the complainant stated that I closely minutely observed the video
related to the incident and enquired from other people, then I came to know that I have written and
mentioned the name of the person who caught the employee Rammilan Verma after pushing him,
as Ankit Shukla. However, that person is not Ankit Shukla, the person who caught him is someone
else, about whom not much information is available, perhaps he was the driver of Mahesh Tiwari,
Ankit Shukla was not involved in the incident.

31. However, in his earlier statements dated 29.06.2025 and 21.07.2025 recorded under
Section 161 Cr.P.C., as well as in the F.I.R. lodged by him, the complainant had specifically named
Ankit Shukla along with his father's name, Devendra Shukla. When the I.O. has specifically
questioned, then the complainant stated that he knows very well to Mahesh Tiwari and Ankit
Shukla for a long time and also aware of their caste identities.

32. The complainant is neither illiterate nor uneducated; rather, he is a responsible person
holding the position of Chairman of the Zila Panchayat. It cannot be assumed that such a person
would make statements that change materially over time. However, from 29.06.2025 to 21.07.2025
and thereafter on 19.09.2025, there have been material changes in his statements, despite the F.I.R.
having been lodged one day after the incident by himself.

33. The tender process was to be completed by 5:00 p.m. on 28.06.2025, and the alleged
incident is stated to have occurred at about 16:50 hours. It is evident that the appellant came,
submitted his tender, and thereafter left the premises.

34. When a specific query was put to the complainant in his third statement dated 19.09.2025
by the Investigating Officer as to why he had earlier named Ankit Shukla in the F.I.R., in his
statements, and in the supplementary statement, and had even identified him in the video, but was
now stating that another person was involved and Ankit Shukla had no role in the incident, the
complainant replied that Ankit Shukla had approached him and asked him to verify the video.
Upon re-examining the footage, he realized that Mahesh Tiwari had pushed Ram Milan and the
person holding him was not Ankit Shukla but another individual/wearing a round-neck black Tshirt, lowers, and slippers. He then stated that Ankit Shukla is innocent and declined to say
anything further.

35. Thus, the entire genesis of the prosecution case has been materially altered during the
course of investigation. There is no question of relying solely upon subsequent perusal of video
footage for identification of the accused, when the complainant was admittedly present at the spot
and had initially named and assigned specific roles to each accused in the F.I.R.

36. While electronic evidence is admissible, it is ordinarily considered in addition to ocular or
circumstantial evidence. In the present case, the complainant/Opposite Party No. 2 was present at
the spot and had made serious allegations against the appellant under the provisions of the B.N.S.
278 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
as well as the special provisions of the Act of 1989. The consistent changes in his version and his
increasing reliance on electronic evidence over his own ocular account cast serious doubt on the
prosecution case.

37. Similarly, the injured Ram Milan Verma, an employee of the Zila Panchayat, has also
recorded two statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., dated 29.06.2025 and 19.09.2025, which are
contradictory to each other. Being an employee under the administrative control of Opposite Party
No. 2/complainant, who is the Chairman of the Zila Panchayat, the possibility of influence cannot
be completely ruled out, particularly in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

38. Thus, both the complainant and the injured witness have consistently changed their
versions from their earlier statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., as well as from the contents of the
F.I.R., which was lodged on the next day of the incident by complainant/opposite party no. 2
himself.

39. The State has filed a counter affidavit and has relied more upon the CCTV footage than the
ocular evidence. It is stated that the CCTV footage dated 28.06.2025 is available from 16:00 hours
to 17:40:19 hours, though the footage does not contain any audio.

40. As per the version in the F.I.R., the alleged incident took place at 16:50 hours. However,
as per the CCTV footage, which forms the basis of the filing of the charge sheet, it is recorded that
at 16:51:09 hours certain persons entered the office of the Zila Panchayat, namely Mahesh Tiwari,
Himanshu Shukla, Sanjay Tiwari and Mohit Tiwari. Thereafter, at 16:51:45 hours, Himanshu
Shukla took some papers from Mohit Tiwari and dropped in the box. On which some objections
has been raised by the injured Ram Milan then Mahesh Tiwari had pushed injured Ram Milan
Verma at 16.51.49 hours and another person wearing a black colour half round-neck T-shirt,
appeared to be holding Ram Milan. The CCTV footage shows that Mohit Tiwari dropped the
papers at 16:52:09 hours.

41. The complainant, Jai Prakash Anuragi failed to identify the person who was holding the
injured Ram Milan and specifically stated that the said person was not Ankit Shukla, who had been
previously named in the F.I.R. On the other hand, the injured Ram Milan stated that the person
holding him was Shailendra Singh, the driver of Mahesh Tiwari. Thus, the prosecution story has
undergone a material change.

42. Since the registration of the F.I.R. on 29.06.2025 and the statements of the complainant
recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 29.06.2025, 21.07.2025 and 19.09.2025 as well as the
statement of Ram Milan was recorded on 29.06.2025 and on 19.09.2025, there have been material
inconsistencies. Another person standing near Sanjay Tiwari, wearing a sky-blue shirt, has been
identified by all as Ankit Shukla, and another person wearing a saffron (bhagwa) kurta has been
identified as Krishna Kant Mishra.

43. As per CCTV footage, at 16:52:47 hours, two persons were seen coming outside the office
of the Chairman of the Zila Panchayat; the complainant has stated that one of them was himself and
the other was Mrityunjay Pratap Ahirwar, a Member of the Zila Panchayat. Thereafter, some
4 All. Mahesh Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
279
conversation appeared to took place between the complainant/Chairman and his colleague,
Mrityunjay Pratap Ahirwar, with Mahesh Tiwari and his associates, and their demeanor appeared
normal.

44. Thereafter, at 16:54:50 hours, Mrityunjay Pratap Ahirwar was seen entering the office of
the Zila Panchayat, and at the same time the complainant/Opposite Party No. 2 also entered his
office. Subsequently, Mahesh Tiwari and his associates remained present in the premises, standing
and sitting there, and ultimately left the premises at 16:57:27 hours.

45. This forms the basis of the filing of the charge sheet after the third statement of the
complainant/Opposite Party No. 2 under Section 161 Cr.P.C., which is based on the CCTV footage.
The complainant has thereby denied and materially departed from the ocular averments made at the
time of registration of the F.I.R. and in his earlier statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated
29.06.2025 and 21.07.2025.

46. The said CCTV footage is also contrary to the ocular evidence of the injured Ram Milan
himself, an employee of the Zila Panchayat. His first statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., based on
ocular evidence, and his subsequent statement dated 19.09.2025 based on CCTV footage, are
contradictory to each other.

47. As per the F.I.R., the incident occurred at 16:50 hours, whereas the CCTV footage, which
forms the basis of the charge sheet, shows that at 16:52:47 hours the complainant/Chairman and
Mrityunjay Pratap Ahirwar came outside their office. A brief conversation then took place between
them and Mahesh Tiwari and his associates, during which their appearance, demeanor and
conditions are appeared to be absolutely normal.

48.
Thereafter,
at
16:54:50
hours,
both
Mrityunjay
Pratap
Ahirwar
and
the
complainant/Opposite Party No. 2 are seen re-entering their office. Thus, they remained outside for
approximately two minutes, during which only a normal conversation took place with the appellant
and his associates and the behaviour and demeanor of the appellant was normal. Even thereafter,
the appellant and his associates remained present at the Zila Panchayat premises and left the Zila
Panchayat office premises at 16:57:27 hours.

49. These CCTV recordings have ultimately become the basis for filing the charge sheet
against the appellant. Whereas, the ocular statement of the complainant and Ram Milan recorded in
F.I.R., and their statements under section 161 Cr.P.C. on 19.06.2025, 21.07.2025 and 19.09.2025,
respectively, are contradictory to their statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. after seeing C.C.T.V.
recording on 19.09.2025. Both are contradictory. It is the ocular evidence which has to prevail,
whereas, both are relying on statement after seeing C.C.T.V. footage, which raises serious doubt on
entire prosecution story.

50. A counter affidavit has also been filed by Opposite Party No. 2/complainant, wherein it is
stated that the said counter affidavit is dated 15.02.2026. He has deposed that the appellant ought to
have taken legal recourse against the answering Opposite Party instead of using caste-offensive
words and engaging in manhandling with the staff of the answering Opposite Party, which,
280 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
according to him, shows that the appellant committed the alleged act knowingly and intentionally
with the intent to tarnish the reputation of the answering Opposite Party.

51. However, in his statement, the answering Opposite Party has disclosed that specific casterelated words were used by the appellant, namely 'Koriya' towards him and 'Chamra' towards the
Member of the Zila Panchayat, Mrityunjay Pratap Ahirwar. This indicates that, according to the
complainant, the appellant used caste-related expressions towards both the answering Opposite
Party and the said Member of the Zila Panchayat.

52. In paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit, it is deposed that the appellant was not prevented
from depositing his tender document; rather, he was advised by the employee on duty at the tender
box to insert the tender envelope directly without folding it. This was allegedly misconstrued by the
appellant and his associate, Ankit Shukla, who then pushed the said employee and used casteoffensive words towards the answering Opposite Party as well as the Member of the Zila
Panchayat, Mrityunjay Pratap Ahirwar, referring to him as 'Chamra.'

53. The complainant, in his third statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 19.09.2025,
which is based on the CCTV footage, stated that Ankit Shukla was not involved. However, while
filing the counter affidavit dated 15.02.2026, he again named Ankit Shukla.

54. The complainant is not consistent in his version; neither his averments based on ocular
evidence nor those based on CCTV footage are consistent, and both are contradictory to each other.
He has further deposed in paragraph 9 that the presence of the appellant and his associates at the
place of occurrence, as well as the alleged manhandling committed by them, was captured in the
CCTV camera installed inside the Zila Panchayat office, where the incident allegedly took place.
The footage, which is without audio, is stated to show that a heated exchange and manhandling
took place by the appellant and his associates.

55. However, as per the CCTV footage, the entry of Mahesh Tiwari into the premises is
recorded at 16:51:09 hours, which has already been clearly explained in detail earlier.

56. The complainant/opposite Party No. 2, along with Mrityunjay Pratap Ahirwar, came
outside their office at 16:52:47 hours and returned to their office at 16:54:50 hours. During this
interval, the complainant and his associate, Mrityunjay Pratap Ahirwar, were seen talking to
Mahesh Tiwari and his associates, and their demeanor appeared normal. The complainant remained
outside his office for only about two minutes, as mentioned above, and there was no apparent
altercation between them; rather, their conduct and demeanor appeared entirely normal.

57. Even after 16:54:50 hours, when the complainant and his associate had returned to their
office, Mahesh Tiwari and his associates remained seated and standing in the premises and left the
premises peacefully at 16:57:27 hours. Thus, the complainant has materially changed his
averments, which were earlier based on ocular evidence.

58. He has further relied on the CCTV footage and has changed the complete averments.
There is neither consistency nor corroboration in the contentions made in the F.I.R., which was
4 All. Mahesh Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
281
lodged after a delay of about one day. Thereafter, the complainant recorded his statements under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 29.06.2025 and 21.07.2025. Subsequently, he recorded another statement
on the basis of CCTV footage on 19.09.2025. All these statements are contradictory to each other.

59. The statement of Ram Milan Verma (injured), an employee of the Zila Panchayat, was first
recorded on the basis of ocular evidence on 29.06.2025, and thereafter his statement under Section
161 Cr.P.C., based on CCTV footage, was recorded on 19.09.2025. Both statements are
contradictory to each other.

60. The complainant has further contended that the CCTV footage should prevail over the
ocular evidence, which is contrary to the settled principles of law. It is the CCTV footage which
ultimately became the basis for the filing of the charge sheet, and thereafter cognizance was taken
by the learned Special Court and summons were issued.

61. The statement of the complainant suffers from inherent inconsistencies. No person is
permitted to invoke the process of law according to his own wishes, surmises, and conjectures.
Such inconsistencies go to the very root of the matter. The entire incident, as narrated and recorded
by the complainant in his complaint, is contradicted by his subsequent deviations from his own
statements and averments based on alleged ocular evidence.

62. Furthermore, the F.I.R. was lodged on the next day of the incident, after a reasonable lapse
of time from the alleged occurrence. The F.I.R. has been lodged by a responsible person, who is the
Chairman of the Zila Panchayat, therefore, the subsequent improvements and inconsistencies in the
prosecution story cannot be judicially accepted.

63. In view of all the facts, reasons, circumstances and the provisions of law, the impugned
summoning order dated 14.10.2025 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST) Act/Additional District &
Sessions Judge, Mahoba in Special Case No.86 of 2025 (State Vs.