# Puneet v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2026) 2 ILRA 1136
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-02-26
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 7953 of 2022
- **Bench:** Salil Kumar Rai, Vinai Kumar Dwivedi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/puneet-v-state-of-u-p-54106
- **Pages:** 17

## Text

_Characters 0–39,884 of 57,983. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39884 for what follows._

1136 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Accordingly, the benefit of doubt would have to be extended to the accused-appellants.
Consequently, the appeal deserves to be allowed and it is, accordingly, allowed. The judgement
passed by the trial Court is set aside. The appellants nos. 2 and 3 namely Anoop Singh and Ram
Kumar, are acquitted of all the charges for which they have been tried.

30. The appellants are in jail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged.

31. Criminal appeal qua appellant no.2, Anoop Singh and appellant no.3, Ram Kumar, is
allowed.

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

33. Sri Chetan Chatterjee, Advocate is entitled to his professional fee of Rs.15,000/- for
appearing as Amicus Curiae to argue this appeal.
---------
(2026) 2 ILRA 1136
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SALIL KUMAR RAI, J.
THE HON'BLE VINAI KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 7953 of 2022

Puneet ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Issue for consideration
Matter pertains to unreliable prosecution evidence in case u/s 302 IPC.

Headnotes
Indian Penal Code-Section 302/34; Arms Act-Sections 25/27 - Written report lodged against an
unknown person - prosecution witnesses did not name or implicate the accused-appellant in their statements
recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. - prosecution witnesses gave improved and changed evidence - evidence of the
prosecution witnesses is wholly unreliable - alleged recovery of the so-called murder weapon is highly doubtful
and suspicious - disputed bullet was fired from a 7.62×25 mm pistol and not from the disputed country-made
pistol - no direct or circumstantial evidence against the accused-appellant, statement recorded under Section
313 Cr.P.C. is completely blank - judgment and order of conviction and sentence are not sustainable in the
eyes of law - Criminal Appeal allowed. (E-9)

Case Law Cited
1. Dhanna v. State of M.P.; (1996) 10 SCC 79
2. Munesh v. State of U.P.; 2004 CRI.L.J. 1529
2 All. Puneet Vs. State of U.P.
1137
List of Acts
1. Indian Penal Code
2. Arms Act
3. Code of Criminal Procedure

List of Keywords
Unknown person; Section 161 Cr.P.C.; improved and changed evidence; wholly unreliable; doubtful and
suspicious; no direct or circumstantial evidence; Section 313 Cr.P.C. completely blank; not sustainable in the
eyes of law.

Appearances of parties
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Akash Dwivedi, Dinesh Kumar Sharma, Rajiv Lochan Shukla, Vinay Kumar; Counsel
for Respondent(s) : G.A., Shiv Bahadur Singh, Sunil Kumar Singh.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vinai Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the accused-appellant, Puneet, against the
judgment and order dated 29.08.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Gautam
Buddha Nagar, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced in Sessions Trial No. 536 of
2019 (State of U.P. v. Puneet), arising out of Case Crime No. 1025 of 2018, under Section 302/34
IPC, Police Station Dadri, District Gautam Buddha Nagar, and in Sessions Trial No. 537 of 2019
(State of U.P. v. Puneet), arising out of Case Crime No. 374 of 2019, under Sections 25/27 of the
Arms Act, Police Station Dadri, District Gautam Buddha Nagar.

2. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Gautam
Buddha Nagar, convicted the appellant under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced him to
imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.10,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo one
month's additional imprisonment. Appellant was also convicted under Sections 25/27 of the Arms
Act and sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/-, and in default of
payment of fine, to undergo fifteen days' additional imprisonment. Aggrieved by the said judgment
and order of conviction and sentence dated 29.08.2022, the appellant has preferred the present
criminal appeal before this Court.

3. According to the prosecution case, it is alleged that the informant, Mahesh Bhati, a resident
of Village Luharli, stated that on 27.11.2018 his son, Mohit Bhati, aged about 25 years, was
returning home from the Greater Noida Development Authority. At about 7:00 p.m., near Village
Vasantpur (Naya Gaon), Mohit was shot by unknown persons, as a result of which he died. It is
further alleged that the deceased's car bearing registration no. UP16 BE-7011 was found parked at
the place of occurrence. Information regarding the incident was conveyed to the informant's
younger son by unknown person. The injured Mohit Bhati was taken to Naveen Hospital, where he
was declared dead by the attending doctors.

4. On the basis of a written report dated 27.11.2018 (Exhibit Ka-1) submitted by the
informant, Mahesh Bhati (PW-1), a First Information Report dated 27.11.2018 (Exhibit Ka-4) was
registered as Case Crime No. 1025 of 2018, under Section 302 IPC at Police Station Dadri, District
Gautam Buddha Nagar, against an unknown person.
1138 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

5. Investigating Officer, Ramsen Singh (PW-9) took charge of the investigation. He inspected
the place of occurrence, collected blood-stained soil and simple soil from the place of occurrence,
and prepared a recovery memo. He also prepared Supurdginama (handing over) (Exhibit Ka-2) of a
car that was parked at the place of occurrence, to Sumit Bhati, son of the informant, Mahesh Bhati
(PW-1) and brother of the deceased, Mohit Bhati. Investigating Officer, Ramsen Singh (PW-9), got
the inquest report (Panchayatnama) as well as other police papers, such as, challannash, letter to
CMO, and other necessary documents, prepared by Sub Inspector, Braj Singh Yadav (PW-8). After
preparing the necessary documents, the dead body of the deceased Mohit Bhati, was sent for
postmortem.

6. Investigating Officer, Ramsen Singh (PW-9) prepared a site plan (Exhibit Ka-11) of the
place of occurrence. He recorded statements of witnesses under Section 161 CrPC. Thereafter, the
First Investigating Officer, Ramsen Singh (PW-9) was transferred and investigation of the case was
taken up by Inspector, Niraj Malik (PW-10). The Second Investigating Officer, Niraj Malik (PW10) also recorded statements of witnesses under Section 161 CrPC.

7. Second Investigating Officer, Niraj Malik (PW-10), arrested accused-appellant, Puneet on
31.03.2019 and recovered one country-made pistol of 32 bore along with two live cartridges of 32
bore and one Swift car of white colour bearing Registration No. UP16 CA-1156, and prepared
Fardbaramadgi'(Exhibit Ka-13). On the basis of recovery of country-made pistol of 32 bore along
with two live cartridges of 32 bore, another case was registered against accused-appellant, Puneet
as Case Crime No. 374 of 2019, under Sections 25/27 Arms Act, Police Station Dadri, District
Gautam Buddha Nagar.

8. A bullet bearing size of 1.5 x 0.9 cm, was recovered from the body of the deceased, Mohit
Bhati. The recovered bullet and country-made pistol of 32 bore along with two live cartridges of 32
bore, were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Uttar Pradesh, Agra for examination. After
completing the necessary formalities of investigation, Second Investigating Officer, Niraj Malik
(PW-10), submitted a charge sheet (Exhibit Ka-12) against accused-appellant, Puneet under Section
302 IPC.

9. Sub Inspector, Mahendra Singh (PW-11), investigated the Case Crime No. 374 of 2019,
under Section 25/27 Arms Act. Investigating Officer, Mahendra Singh (PW-11), after completing
all necessary formalities, including recording of evidence of prosecution witnesses under Section
161 CrPC, prepared a site plan of the place, where accused-appellant, Puneet was arrested with
country-made pistol of 32 bore and two live cartridges of 32 bore. After completing all formalities,
PW-11 submitted a charge sheet (Exhibit Ka-15), against accused-appellant, Puneet under Section
25/27 Arms Act.

10. Dr. Lalit Kumar Singh (PW-6), conducted autopsy of the deceased Mohit Bhati on
28.11.2018 and prepared postmortem report (Exhibit Ka-3). According to the postmortem report,
the following injuries were found on the body of the deceased:

"Entry Wound
2 All. Puneet Vs. State of U.P.
1139

(i) Entry wound size 1 x 1 cm' x brain deep, pass through arm left side back of skull, 5 cm
behind left ear. Blackening, tattooing, singeing of 3 x 3 cm in sizes around the wound (margin
round) edges inverted.

(ii) Entry puncture wound size 1 x 1 cm x cavity deep over left side (sternal region) chest,
9 cm from left nipple at 10 o'clock position, margin round and edges inverted. Blackening,
tattooing,'singing'3 x 3 cm of are on size, surrounding.

(iii) Entry wound size 1 x 1 cm x cavity deep, over left side front of chest, 6 cm above
and medial to left axilla. Margins wound & punctured, edges inverted. Tattooing, Blackening and
singing of area surrounding size 2 x 2 cm.

Exit Wound

(i) Exit wound of this wound that over Right side face, 2 cm below Right eye. Size 2 x 2
in size, margins are everted.

(ii) Exit wound size 2 x 2 cm over left side back of chest, 26 cm below C7 Vertebra
margins everted.

(iii) Exit wound size 2 x 2 over left side back of chest, at the level of axilla, 7cm x 7cm
medial and above (away) from left Axilla. One bullet stucked in the exit wound.'

11. Since, the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the learned Magistrate
committed the case to the Sessions Court for trial.

12. The learned Trial Court framed charges against the accused-appellant on 30.09.2021 under
Section 302/34 IPC. The accused-appellant denied the charges and claimed trial.

13. From a perusal of the record of the learned Trial Court, it is apparent that in the light of the
order passed by the learned Trial Court on 11.12.2019, accused Gaurav was declared juvenile and
his file was separated and sent to Juvenile Justice Board, Gautam Buddha Nagar for trial.

14. The prosecution, in support of its case, adduced twelve witnesses, such as, the informant
Mahesh Bhati (PW-1), Chandrahas (PW-2), Sumit Bhati (PW-3), Krishna (PW-4), Amit (PW-5),
Dr. Lalit Kumar Singh (PW-6), Murari Lal (PW-7), Braj Singh Yadav (PW-8), Ramsen Singh
(PW-9), Niraj Malik (PW-10), Mahendra Singh (PW-11), Sahil Kumar (PW-12). Apart from the
oral evidence, the prosecution also relied upon the documentary evidence, marked as Exhibit Ka-1
to Exhibit Ka-15.

15. After recording the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses, the learned Trial Court fixed
21.04.2022 for recording the statement of the accused-appellant, Puneet under Section 313 of the
CrPC.'However, on perusal of the record, it is clear that questions numbered 1 to 18 were typed and
prepared in advance, leaving blank space below each question for recording the answers. These
questions for recording the statement of the accused-appellant, Puneet, under Section 313 CrPC
1140 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
were prepared in six pages bearing paper numbers 21Ka/1 to 21Ka/3. From a perusal of the
statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC, it is evident that only the personal details of the
accused, namely his name, age, father's name, profession and address, were filled in. Further, in
paper numbers 21Ka/1 to 21Ka/3, no answer of the accused was recorded, and the columns meant
for answers to question numbers 1 to 18 are completely blank. Only the signature of the accusedappellant appears on each page, along with the initials of the then Presiding Officer, Special Judge,
SC/ST Act, Gautam Buddha Nagar, and a full signature on the last page dated 21.04.2022. Thus, it
is apparent that although the questions under Section 313 CrPC were prepared, the answers of the
accused-appellant were not recorded by the learned Presiding Officer.

16. The accused-appellant has not adduced any evidence in his defence. The learned Trial
Court, after hearing arguments from both the parties, appreciated and evaluated the evidence on
record and found the appellant guilty under Section 302/34 IPC and Section 25/27 Arms Act. The
Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment under Section 302/34 IPC
with a fine of Rs.25,000/-, and in default, one month additional imprisonment. The Trial Court also
convicted the appellant to three years imprisonment under Section 25/27 Arms Act along with a
fine of Rs.5,000/-, and in default, fifteen days additional imprisonment. Both sentences were
ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated
29.08.2022, the accused-appellant preferred this criminal appeal before this Court.

17. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant has submitted that the impugned conviction
order passed by the learned Trial Court is based on surmises and conjectures. The prosecution has
failed to prove its case against the accused-appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. The learned Trial
Court has absolutely misread and misinterpreted the evidence and wrongly recorded finding of
conviction against the accused-appellant. There are a lot of major and material contradictions in the
statements of prosecution witnesses but the learned Trial Court has not given any heed/attention
towards these major and material contradictions. There is no direct or indirect evidence against the
accused-appellant. The sentence and conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court is absolutely
perverse and deserve to be set aside. The appellant was not involved in the incident. The alleged
recovery shown by the prosecution is false and planted one. The appellant is innocent and has been
falsely implicated in the present case due to village politics and election rivalry. The learned Trial
Court wrongly appreciated evidence against the accused-appellant.'

18. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the accused-appellant that, from the perusal of
the oral and documentary evidence, it is amply clear that the appellant was not involved in the
commission of the alleged crime. However, the learned Trial Court, by misreading and misappreciating the prosecution evidence and also against the settled principles of law, held the
accused-appellant guilty for the commission of alleged crime. In view of the above points of
argument, the learned counsel for the accused-appellant submitted that the present appeal filed by
the accused-appellant is liable to be allowed and the judgment and order of conviction and sentence
passed by the learned Trial Court is liable to be set aside.

19. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for the complainant have
submitted that the learned Trial Court, after perusing and appreciating all the prosecution evidence,
held the accused-appellant guilty for the commission of alleged crime. It is also submitted that
2 All. Puneet Vs. State of U.P.
1141
direct evidence against the accused-appellant is available on record from the evidence of
prosecution witnesses; informant Mahesh Bhati (PW-1), Chandrahas (PW-2),Sumit Bhati (PW-3),
Krishna (PW-4), Amit (PW-5). The recovery of a country-made pistol of 32 bore, along with two
live cartridges of 32 bore, and the report of Forensic Science Laboratory, Uttar Pradesh, Agra,
prove the direct involvement of the appellant in the present case beyond reasonable doubt. A bullet
recovered from the deceased Mohit Bhati's body during autopsy was found to be fired from the
same country-made pistol, which was recovered from the possession of the accused-appellant,
Puneet. It is also submitted that there was previous enmity and rivalry between the prosecution and
defence sides.

20. Due to the previous enmity and village rivalry, the deceased was murdered by the accusedappellant, Puneet with foolproof planning. The learned Trial Court has rightly appreciated the
evidence and applied all relevant laws, thereby holding the appellant guilty for the commission of
alleged offence. Consequently, the criminal appeal filed by the accused-appellant is devoid of merit
and lacks force and is, therefore, liable to be dismissed.

21. In the light of the above arguments and counter-arguments of both the sides, we have gone
through the entire evidence available on record. We have also perused the judgment and order of
conviction and sentence dated 29.08.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act),
Gautam Buddha Nagar.

22. A perusal of the written report dated 27.11.2018 (Exhibit Ka-1) reveals that the deceased,
Mohit Bhati, son of informant Mahesh Bhati (PW-1), was returning home from Greater Noida
Development Authority on 27.11.2018. At about 7:00 p.m., near Village Vasantpur (Naya Gaon),
Mohit was shot by unknown persons, as a result of which, he died. From a perusal of the written
report (Exhibit Ka-1), it is also revealed that the car of the deceased, bearing registration no. UP16
BE-7711, was found lying/parked at the place of occurrence. The written report further indicates
that information about the murder was given to the informant's younger son, Sumit Bhati by an
unknown person. The injured Mohit Bhati was taken to Naveen Hospital, where he was declared
dead by the attending doctors. Thus, from a perusal of the written report (Exhibit Ka-1) filed by the
informant Mahesh Bhati (PW-1) after the alleged incident, it is clearly established that the
informant has lodged the report against unknown persons. No one is named as an accused in the
written report. The information about the murder of his son Mohit Bhati was received by the
informant through his younger son, who had received it from some other person.

23. In his examination-in-chief, informant Mahesh Bhati (PW-1) has stated that "The incident
occurred on 27.11.2018. The incident took place at 7:00 PM. The incident occurred near Naya
Gaon, Vasantpur. I was informed about the incident by my son, Sumit. My son had a Kwid car, the
number of which was UP16 BE-7011. I did not reach the place of the incident. Mohit was taken to
the Naveen Hospital at Dadri by my younger son and his friend. Upon receiving the information, I
reached Naveen Hospital, Dadri. I saw my son, Mohit, at the hospital. My son Mohit had been shot
in the temple (side of the head) and the chest. I had a written report (Tehrir) prepared by Mahipal
Bhati and I signed it. The witness identified the signatures on the complaint paper (Paper No.
4A/3). Paper No. 4A/3 was marked as Exhibit Ka-1. The police questioned me and recorded my
statement twice. My brother, Umesh, also told me that he had gone to Ajayabpur to bring some
1142 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
goods. While returning with the goods, he saw that Mohit's vehicle was parked ahead at the turn of
Naya Gaon, and Puneet's vehicle was parked behind it. Puneet was sitting in the steering seat
(driver's seat), and Mohit was sitting next to him, while other people were sitting in the back of the
car. Alcohol was being consumed in the vehicle. As soon as he walked ten steps ahead, he heard
the sound of a gunshot. When he looked back, Puneet had shot Mohit. He had reported this matter
to the police."

24. In his cross-examination, the informant Mahesh Bhati (PW-1) has stated that many people
from the village went to the police station to file the report, but Chandrahas did not go the police
station. He further stated that "I did not give this statement to the police that 'unknown people shot
and injured him.' If the aforementioned point is written in my statement, then I cannot explain the
reason for it; that the police were in collusion with the accused, because the BJP MLA of the Dadri
area is the maternal uncle of the accused, Puneet."

25. In his cross-examination, the informant, Mahesh Bhati (PW-1) further stated that I had
given Puneet's name in writing in the FIR, but the police did not make him an accused. I had told
the police in my statement that "I had filed a report against Puneet and his brothers regarding this
murder, but due to pressure of the MLA, the police did not register the report. If police have not
recorded the said fact in my statement, I cannot give any reason for it. I had given this statement to
the police that 'my brother Umesh told me that .................... shot Mohit.''If the police have not
recorded this in my statement, I cannot give any reason for it. Because the police were under
pressure."

26. In the light of the evidence as deposed by the informant, Mahesh Bhati (PW-1), it is
necessary to peruse the evidence of First Investigating Officer, Ramsen Singh (PW-9). From a
perusal of evidence of Ramsen Singh (PW-9), it is revealed that on 15.12.2018, statements of
Mahesh Bhati, Chandrahas, Beg Raj, Subhash Nagar, Satish Bhati and Jaiveer Singh were recorded
by PW-9. During his cross examination, this witness has stated that "After recording the statement
of witness Sumit, son of Mahesh, it came to my knowledge that 'Sumit had received information
regarding Mohit's murder through a Brahmin (Pandit) and a Gurjar boy.' No effort was made by me
to search for the aforementioned Pandit and Gurjar boy who provided that information."

27. In his cross-examination, First Investigating Officer, Ramsen Singh (PW-9) further stated
that "I recorded the statements of the informant Mahesh and witness Chandrahas, son of Rampal,
on 15.12.2018. I have not recorded any reason in the case diary for not recording the statement of
Chandrahas, son of Rampal, prior to 15.12.2018. I have not recorded any reason for not recording
the statement of the informant Mahesh prior to 29.11.2018. On 08.01.2019, I recorded the
statements of witnesses Krishna, son of Chandrahas, and Amit, son of Rajendra. Their statements
were not recorded before 08.01.2019 because no information had been received about them; said
himself that their statements were recorded once their details surfaced.'After recording the
statement of witness Krishna, son of Chandrahas, on 08.01.2019, I came to know that Puneet had
threatened Mahesh at the police station on 30.03.2018. I also came to know about the
aforementioned threat from the statement of Amit, son of Rajendra. It is correct that the matter
regarding Puneet threatening Mahesh, is not present in any police station records. Witness
Chandrahas, son of Rampal, gave me this statement that; Sahab, on the date 27.11.2018, someone
2 All. Puneet Vs. State of U.P.
1143
shot and killed Mohit, son of Mahesh, from the village. Upon hearing this, I also went to Naveen
Hospital, Dadri, where the body was kept. I had gone to the police station with Mahesh to file the
report." Further, in his cross-examination, the First Investigating Officer, Ramsen Singh (PW-9)
has stated that "The informant witness Mahesh gave me this statement that at around 7:00 pm
unknown people shot and injured him."

28. Thus, from a perusal of the evidence of informant Mahesh Bhati (PW-1) and First
Investigating Officer, Ramsen Singh (PW-9), it is evident that Mahesh Bhati is not an eyewitness to
the alleged incident. The incident was not witnessed by informant Mahesh Bhati (PW-1). The
information about the alleged incident was given to PW-1 by his younger son, Sumit Bhati.
According to PW-1, a'Pandit and a Gurjar boy had given information about the incident to Sumit.
PW-1; after receiving the information about the incident did not go to the place of occurrence. PW1 went to Naveen Hospital, Dadri, where dead boy of his deceased son, Mohit was kept. The
written report (Exhibit Ka-1) was lodged by PW-1 against unknown person, however, in the course
of recording his evidence, PW-1 stated against accused-appellant projecting a new theory that his
brother, Umesh Bhati had told to him that he had heard and seen the noise of the firing and
shooting by accused-appellant Puneet at Mohit Bhati.

29. From the evidence as given by this witness, in his evidence, it appears that in his statement
recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. given to the Investigating Officer, this witness has not named
any person as an accused person. This witness has not named or expressed any doubt against
accused-appellant, Puneet in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. given to the
Investigating Officer. But during the time of recording of his evidence in the Court, this witness
deposed that statement, which was not given by this witness to the Investigating Officer in his
statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

30. From a perusal of the evidence of PW-1, it is clear that this witness had deliberately
improved and changed his statement in the Court and given a new statement in the Court whereby
he tried to implicate the accused-appellant, Puneet for the commission of alleged crime. Apart from
this, from the reference of the evidence of first Investigating Officer, Ramsen Singh (PW-9), this
fact is fully corroborated that this witness has changed his statement in the Court against his
statement given to the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. In this way, this witness
tried hard to project a new prosecution story implicating accused-appellant, Puneet in this case.
However, from a perusal of the overall evidence of this witness in the light of the evidence of First
Investigating Officer, Ramsen Singh (PW-9), it is clear that this witness has stated false and
concocted facts. From the evidence of this witness, it is amply clear that major and material
contradictions are present in the evidence of this witness, which is against the prosecution story.
Thus, we find that there is no relevancy and veracity in the evidence of this witness. Evidence of
this witness is totally unreliable and untrustworthy of credit.

31. Prosecution adduced Chandrahas as PW-2. This witness in his examination-in-chief has
stated that "The incident have occurred at around 6:00 to 6:30 PM. It had become dark. I was
returning from my aunt's village, Dadupur. A boy had dropped me off at Ajayabpur station on a
motorcycle. From there, I started walking toward my village. I saw two cars parked on the road.
Mohit and Puneet were sitting in one of the cars. Puneet was on the driver's side, and Mohit was on
1144 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the passenger (conductor) side. I did not speak to them. I had only walked about 10-20 steps toward
the village when I heard the sound of gunfire. When I turned around and looked, Puneet had shot
Mohit twice. Out of fear, I ran toward the village. Before I reached the village, there was already a
commotion/noise. I do not know which car left, but Puneet's car had gone. After the chaos broke
out in the village, I did not go to Mahesh's house to tell him about the incident. I went to the police
station and also to the mortuary. The inquest report (panchayatnama) was filled out in my presence.
I saw Mohit's body. Mohit had two bullet wounds in his chest and one in his neck.'On that day, I
did not have any conversation with Mahesh because he was unconscious. I had told the police
everything regarding the said incident. The police were under the pressure of the M.L.A."

32. In his cross-examination, Chandrahas (PW-2) has stated that "Before the incident with
Mohit, I was in service. When I was in service, I did not keep a phone. I am aware that murder is a
crime. Regarding the incident that happened with Mohit, I did not make any phone calls anywhere.
I did not make any phone calls to either mine or Mahesh's relatives in connection with this incident,
and I personally stated that I do not know how to use a phone. I did not tell the police about the fact
that I do not know how to make calls, nor did the police ask me about it. I cannot state any reason
for this matter not being told. After the incident with Mohit, I remained in my village at home for
four and half months. During those four and half months, the police visited the village several times
in connection with Mohit's murder. It is wrong to say that after four and half months, I was not
ready to testify against Puneet in connection with Mohit's murder. He then himself said that he had
informed the police and Mahesh about the incident after it occurred. I went to Dadri Police Station
with Mahesh to file the report. Mahesh wrote the report at the station itself. Mahesh dictated the
report and the writer wrote it. It is wrong to say that Mahesh was not unconscious at the time of
filing the report. I was also a witness (Panch) in the written documentation of the inquest
(Panchayatnama) of Mohit's body. Besides me, there were many other witnesses (Panchs). The
police did not take any opinion from us witnesses (Panchs). I had told the police everything about
the incident at the time of the Panchayatnama of the body. If the police have not written the things
told by me in the inquest report (Panchayatnama) regarding Mohit's murder, then I cannot state any
reason for it. The police recorded my statement at the police station the day after the incident and
then again questioned me later. The second questioning was done 2-3 months after the incident. It
is wrong to say that Puneet was falsely implicated in the murder of Mohit with due consideration
and planning after four months after the incident due to village politics and election rivalry."

33. During the cross-examination of PW-2, a question was put to him by the defence
suggesting that in his first statement given to the police he had stated that on 27.11.2018, Mohit,
son of Mahesh, a resident of the village, was shot dead by someone and upon hearing this, he went
to Naveen Hospital, Dadri, where the dead body was kept. He had accompanied Mahesh to the
police station for lodging the First Information Report. In reply, PW-2 stated that the said facts did
not form part of his statement and that he had not given any such statement to the police. He further
stated that if the police had recorded such facts in his statement, he could not assign any reason for
the same. PW-2 further denied having stated in his second statement dated 16.04.2019 that, after
proceeding 50-60 steps forward, he heard the sound of 3-4 gunshots. He also denied having stated
that on reaching home he came to know that Mohit had been shot and was taken to Naveen
Hospital, Dadri. He reiterated that if these facts were recorded by the police in his statement, he
could not explain the reason for the same.
2 All. Puneet Vs. State of U.P.
1145

34. In the light of the above evidence as given by Chandrahas (PW-2), it is judicious to peruse
the evidence of the Investigating Officer so that it could be clear that whether this witness is stating
true facts about the incident in the Court during his evidence or not.

35. First Investigating Officer, Ramsen Singh (PW-9) has deposed in his cross-examination
that "I had recorded the statements of the informant Mahesh and witness Chandrahas, son of
Rampal, on 15.12.2018. I have not recorded any reason in the case diary for not recording the
statement of Chandrahas, son of Rampal, prior to 15.12.2018."

36. Second Investigating Officer, Niraj Malik (PW-10) has stated in his cross examination that
"Witness Chandrahas had given me this statement that when he reached about 50-60 yards ahead,
the sound of three or four fires was heard. Witness Chandrahas had also given the statement that
upon reaching home, it came to his knowledge that Mohit had been shot and he had been taken to
Naveen Hospital. Witness Chandrahas did not tell me in his statement that when he turned back,
Puneet fired two bullets at Mohit. Witness Chandrahas did not give me a statement saying that
Puneet was on the driver's side and Mohit was on the conductor's side of the vehicle. Instead, he
stated that apart from Puneet, Mohit was sitting in the vehicle and Gaurav, the son of Rajendra's
brother-in-law, was sitting in the back seat. Witness Chandrahas did not give me the statement that
I had any conversation with them or not. Witness Chandrahas also did not give me the statement
that he ran toward the village due to fear. Instead, he stated that he went straight to the village.
Witness Chandrahas also did not give me a statement that there was noise and commotion in the
village before he arrived. Instead, he gave a statement that by the time he reached the village, it
became known that Mohit had been shot dead. Witness Chandrahas also has not given the
statement that after the stampede broke out in the village, he did not go to Mahesh's house and
inform him about the said incident. Instead, he had given the statement that he had not told anyone
because of fear."'

37. In this way, from a perusal of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the First
Investigating Officer, Ramsen Singh (PW-9), and also the Second Investigating Officer, Niraj
Malik (PW-10), it is revealed that Chandrahas (PW-2) was projected by the prosecution as an
eyewitness to the incident. However, from the evidence of Chandrahas (PW-2), it is clear that
although in his examination-in-chief, PW-2 tried to depose himself in a way that he is an
eyewitness to the alleged incident, but during his cross-examination by the defence, from the
answers of this witness, it is revealed that PW-2 is stating a totally false and concocted story in the
Court. This witness stated in his evidence a totally different and changed statement in the Court,
which this witness had not stated before the Investigating Officer of the case in his statement
recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

38. This witness totally changed his statement at the time of recording of his evidence in the
Court. What has been given and stated by this witness before the Investigating Officers of the case
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and in the Court in his evidence, it show that, in the evidence of this
witness, material and major contradictions are present. This witness stated in the Court a totally
false, fabricated, and afterthought prosecution story, thereby falsely implicating the accusedappellant in the alleged crime in this case. The falsity of this witness, that this witness has been
1146 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
stating wrong and false facts in the Court, is now clear and proved by the evidence of the
Investigating Officers in this case.

39. In view of the above discussion and appreciation of the evidence of this witness, we are
legally unable to accept the evidence of this witness as true and reliable. In other words, the
evidence of this witness is highly doubtful and suspicious. After the alleged incident, the
prosecution tried to project this witness as an eyewitness, but from a perusal of the evidence of this
witness, it is amply clear that the prosecution miserably failed in its attempt, therefore, the evidence
of Chandrahas (PW-2) is fully unreliable and unworthy of credit.

40. Sumit Bhati was also produced by the prosecution as PW-3. This witness is the younger
brother of deceased Mohit Bhati. PW-3 in his evidence has stated that "I received information
about the incident at around 7:15 PM from two boys of the village. They told me that vehicle no.
7011 is parked on the road near the field and my brother has been shot and is lying dead in the
field. I had went out for the place of incident on my bike with Pradeep, a boy from my
neighborhood. On the way, I called Pradeep's father from Pradeep's phone.'My brother was lying
dead straight in the field, his feet were towards the field and his head was towards the road. Among
the boys, I mentioned as informants, one was a Pandit and other was a Gurjar. Both these boys
were from our village."

41. Thus, from a perusal of the evidence of Sumit Bhati (PW-3), it is revealed that this witness
is also not an eyewitness to the alleged incident. At the time of the incident, this witness was not
present at the place of occurrence. This witness received information about the murder of his
brother, Mohit Bhati, from two boys of the village, among whom one was a Pandit and the other
was a Gurjar. After receiving information about the murder of his brother, Mohit Bhati, this
witness, along with one Pradeep of his village, reached the place of the incident, and the dead body
of his brother, Mohit Bhati, was taken to Naveen Hospital, Dadri, where he was declared dead by
the attending doctor. Therefore, from the evidence of this witness, it is amply clear that this witness
is not an eyewitness to the alleged incident. After the incident, this witness reached at the place of
occurrence. From the evidence of this witness, we found no relevant fact by which the accusedappellant could be connected with the alleged crime.

42. The prosecution also produced Krishna as PW-4, who is the son of Chandrahas (PW-2).
From a perusal of his evidence, it appears that in 2018, during a game of Kabaddi, a quarrel took
place between him, Deepak, and Puneet. According to this witness, reports were lodged from both
sides at the concerned police station, and both parties went to jail.'He further stated that the
accused, Puneet, threatened Mahesh Bhati'at the Dadri Police Station, saying that you are
supporting the other side and I would take revenge after returning from jail. However, it is clear
from the evidence that neither this witness nor Mahesh Bhati made any complaint whether written
or oral, at the Dadri Police Station.

43. From the evidence of this witness, it is revealed that the prosecution, with a considered and
afterthought approach, tried to narrate the fact of previous enmity with the accused-appellant
through this witness. It is amply clear that the prosecution attempted to project this witness to
establish a motive and fact of enmity so that its story could gain force. However, from a perusal of
2 All. Puneet Vs. State of U.P.
1147
the evidence, we find no reliability or truthfulness in the statement of this witness. In view of the
above, the evidence of this witness is not such that it could lend any support to the prosecution's
story. Therefore, the statement and evidence of this witness are neither reliable nor trustworthy.

44. In the same manner as stated by Krishna (PW-4), prosecution witness Amit (PW-5) also
narrated the fact of previous enmity, which had been mentioned by Krishna (PW-4). In his
evidence, this witness stated that the quarrel occurred during a game of Kabaddi, and first
information reports were lodged from both sides under Section 307 IPC, with the informant
Mahesh Bhati supporting Krishna (PW-4) and Amit (PW-5). Due to this, Puneet threatened Mahesh
Bhati, stating that he would suffer and that he would take revenge after returning from jail.
According to this witness, when Puneet threatened Mahesh Bhati, a written complaint was lodged
by him at the police station. However, in his cross-examination, he stated that he had received no
receipt of the written complaint, kept no copy, and had no explanation for the absence of the
complaint in the police records. He also stated that if the police had not recorded this fact in his
statement, he could not provide any reason for it.

45. Thus, from a perusal of the evidence of Amit (PW-5), it is amply clear that the
prosecution, after due consideration and deliberation, tried to project this witness in Court to
introduce the fact of previous enmity and the quarrel between the parties in order to give force to
the prosecution's story.