# Vinod v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 105
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-02
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 4964 of 2015
- **Bench:** Chandra Dhari Singh, Devendra Singh-I
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vinod-v-state-of-u-p-54691
- **Pages:** 11

## Text

4 All. Vinod Vs. State of U.P.
105

23. In State of U.P. v. Hari Chand (2009) 13 SCC 542, Hon'ble Apex Court re-iterated the
aforementioned position of law and stated that, "In any event unless the oral evidence is totally
irreconcilable with the medical evidence, it has primacy.

Thus, the position of law in cases where there is a contradiction between medical evidence and
ocular evidence can be crystallized to the effect that though the ocular testimony of a witness has
greater evidentiary value vis-a-vis medical evidence, when medical evidence makes the ocular
testimony improbable, that becomes a relevant factor in the process of the evaluation of evidence.
However, where the medical evidence goes so far that it completely rules out all possibility of the
ocular evidence being true, the ocular evidence may be disbelieved.

24. In the view of the facts and circumstances discussed above, we are of the opinion that the
prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond the reasonable doubt. Hence, the benefit of doubt
would have to be extended to the accused-appellant no. 1, Jagdish. The appeal deserves to be
allowed.

25. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed qua appellant no. 1, Jagdish.

26. Appellant no. 1, Jagdish, is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are
discharged. .

27. Let a certified copy of the judgment alongwith trial court record be sent to the concerned
Chief Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court for compliance.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 105
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.
THE HON'BLE DEVENDRA SINGH-I, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 4964 of 2015

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

Issue for consideration
Matter pertains to legality of conviction order in case of no evidence.

Headnotes
Indian Penal Code-Section 302- Trial Court convicted Appellant to life imprisonment- by the same
judgement co-accused Omkar is acquitted u/s302/201 IPC and appellant Vinod acquitted u/s 201 IPCadmitted facts-all the prosecution witnesses are related to each other- evidences are full of discrepancies -can
106 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
be termed as wholly unreliable witnesses- case of no evidence- evidence has been fabricated in piecemeal to
drag the appellant in the present case-impugned conviction order set aside. Appeal allowed. (E-9)

Case Law Cited
1. Masalti Vs. State of U.P. (1964) 8 SCR 133
2. Raju Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2012)4 SCC (Cri) 184
3. Edakkandi Dineshan alias P. Dineshan and others Vs. State of Kerala, (2025) 3 SCC 273
4. Chhote Lal Vs. Rohtash and others- Criminal Appeal No. 2490 of 2014 decided on 14.12.2023
5. Vadivelu Thevar Vs. State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 614

List of Acts
Indian Penal Code, 1860

List of Keywords
Asphyxia; strangulation; discrepancies; unreliable witnesses.

Appearances of parties
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Ajay Kumar Mishra, Bhavya Sahai, Ram Babu Sharma, Sandeep Kumar Rai,
Vikrant Rana
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Adesh Kumar, G.A.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh, J.)

1. This criminal appeal has been filed against judgement dated 07.10.2015 and order dated
08.10.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Meerut in Sessions
Trial No. 207 of 2010, arising out of Case Crime No. 170 of 2009, under Section 302/201 IPC,
Police Station Saroorpur, district Meerut whereby the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the
appellant to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in case of default in payment of fine,
the appellant shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years.

2. However, by the same judgement, the learned Judge acquitted co-accused Omkar under
Section 302/201 IPC and appellant Vinod under Section 201 IPC.

Facts of the case

3. The facts that formed the bedrock of the present criminal appeal are that a written report
was given by Kartar Singh (hereinafter referred to as the first informant) at the police outpost
Khiwai of police station Saroorpur mentioning therein that the applicant is the resident of village
and post Sarauli, district Ghaziabad. His daughter Chanchal (hereinafter referred to as the
deceased) aged about 13 years was living with Rati Ram, uncle (Phupha) of his wife since her birth.
On 06.06.2009, Rati Ram informed him on telephone that he sustained injuries in his leg due to fall
from cart. On that information, when the first informant along with his brother and uncle reached
there, enquired Rati Ram about his injury, then he told the first informant that his daughter is
missing since 4 O'clock. The first informant asked Rati Ram to accompany him to get the first
information report lodged and when the brother of Rati Ram went to his house to wear Kurta, he
found the dead body of Chanchal lying at his door.
4 All. Vinod Vs. State of U.P.
107

4. On the basis of the aforesaid report, a case was registered at case crime No. 53 of 2009,
under Section 302 IPC at the police outpost Khiwai, police station Saroorpur, district Meerut.
However, the case was renumbered as case crime No. 170 of 2009, at Police Station Saroorpur,
which was entered in GD vide report No. 31 at 18:35 hours.

5. On the next day, the first informant submitted another written report Paper No. Aa 10/1,
which was not proved before the Court, alleging therein that in addition to previous written report
that his daughter was murdered on 6th June, 2009 between 04:00 PM and 1:10 AM, after the postmortem examination, when he took the dead body of her daughter to his village, his cousin
Pradeep, son of Vijendra and Jalindra, son of Rajbir also reached his village and told him that on
06.06.2009, they had gone to village Kinauni at the house of Rati Ram and met their niece
Chanchal. They remained at the house of Rati from from 4 to 5 PM and in their presence Vinod,
son of Chandru called Chanchal to prepare 2-3 cup of tea stating that her aunt is not at home and
his friend has come. At about 5:00 PM Chanchal went there with tea. Thereafter, both of them had
left for village Maharampur. The first informant has made a suspicion that Vinod, son of Chandru
had killed her.

6. On 12.06.2009, the first informant had submitted another application Paper No. Aa 10/3
mentioning therein that his brother-in-law Sube Singh and Kadam, resident of Mukeem Pura,
district Baghpat had come to his house and told him that on the date of incident when they went to
make water, they saw that Vinod and Omkar alias Suda, son of Chandru throwing the dead body of
Chanchal at the door of Yashpal taking from the house of Vinod. This paper has also not been
proved before the Court.

7. After registration of the case, the law set into motion and investigation of the case was
entrusted to PW-8, Pramod Kumar Sharma. PW-7, SI Tej Singh Yadav, who was present at the
police station rushed to the spot and conducted the inquest on the dead body of the deceased and
prepared inquest report and other papers, Ext. Ka-3 to 7, sealed the dead body and sent if for postmortem through Constables Ramesh Chand and Surendrapal Singh.

8. PW-8, SHO Pramod Kumar Sharma, in his evidence has stated that on 07.6.2009, he was
posted as Station House Officer at police station Saroorpur. On that day, he started the investigation
of case crime No. 53/170 of 2009, which was registered at reporting out post Khiwai. After
receiving the post mortem report of the deceased, he converted the case to one under section 302
IPC. He recorded the statement of Clerk Constable Sukhbir Singh and left for the house of the
deceased, but no one was present. On 08.6.2009, he recorded the statement of the first informant
and also copied the post-mortem report and inquest report in the CD. On the pointing out of Rati
Ram he inspected the spot and prepared site plan. He also recorded the statement of the witnesses.
On 15.6.2009, the first informant made another application, on the basis whereof Section 201 was
added and name of Omkar has been added in the array of accused. After culmination of
investigation and completing necessary formalities, the investigating officer submitted charge sheet
No. 153 of 2009, Ext. Ka-10 on 16.8.2009.

9. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate
committed the case to the Court of Sessions where case was registered as Sessions Trial No. 207 of
108 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
2010. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Meerut framed the charges against the
appellant-Vinod and co-accused Omkar under Section 302/34 and 201 IPC, which were read over
and explained to them. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

10. To bring home guilt of the appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 11
witnesses. PW-1, Kartar Singh, PW-2, Rati Ram, PW-3 Dr. Ravi Prakash, PW-4, Jalindra Singh,
PW-5, Pradeep, PW-6, Sube Singh, PW-7, SI Tej Singh yadav, PW-8, Inspector Pramod Kumar
Sharma, PW-9, Premo Devi, PW-10, Dr. Rakesh Chandra, PW-11, Yashpal.

11. PW-1, Kartar Singh is father of the deceased and first informant of the case. He reiterated
the versions given in the first information report. He further deposed that on 08.6.2009 and
12.06.2009 he also made application to the police.

12. PW-2, Rati Ram in his examination-in-chief deposed that he knows accused Vinod and
Omkar. Accused-Vinod is his nephew. He also stated that since he has no issue, the deceased was
living with him when she was aged about 2 years. At the time of incident she was aged about 1314. She also looks him after as well as his wife. The house of accused-Vinod is adjacent to his
house. At the time of incident, the family of Vinod was not at home. Omkar and Vinod were at the
house. On the date of occurrence at about 05:00 PM, accused-Vinod called the deceased to his
house for making tea as his wife was not at home. At that time, Pradeep, Jalendra and his wife were
also present there. Chanchal went to the house of Vinod. When Chanchal did not come back, they
made a search in the neighbourhood. He also went at the house of Vinod, but the house was locked
and Omkar and Vinod were not at home. Thereafter, he informed the relatives as well as father of
the deceased. Kartar, Jalendra and Pradeep reached at about 1-1/2 hours to whom he told about the
missing of the deceased. He further deposed that when the first informant asked him to accompany
him to get the first information report lodged and when Yashpal, brother of Rati Ram went to his
house to wear Dhoti, he found the dead body of Chanchal lying at the brick kiln near the house of
Yashpal. There was mark of dragging from the house of Vinod up to brick kiln. The house of
Vinod was locked. The door of southern side of the house was opened and green paint which was
on the room, was also also got on the clothes of the deceased.

13. PW-3, Dr. Ravi Prakash has stated on oath that he was posted at P.L. Sharma Hospital,
Meerut and on 07.6.2009, he was on post mortem duty. On that date at about 03:30 PM, he
conducted the post-mortem on the body of the deceased and found the following ante-mortem
injuries:

1. An abrasion in an area of 4 cm c 2 cm in front of left right ankle.

2. Multiple abrasion in an area of 8 cm x 4 cm on the posterior area of left ankle just 15 cm
above the heel.

3. A lacerated wound in the shape of 1 cm x 0.5 cm on upper portion of second finger of right
hand.

4. A lacerated wound in an area of 2 cm x 1 cm just above nail of left hand.
4 All. Vinod Vs. State of U.P.
109

5. A Ligature mark horizontal size 28 cm x 4.0 cm on the front of neck below the thyroid
cartilage, 7 cm below the chin, 5 cm below left ear and 6 cm below right ear, thyroid base was
brown.

14. In the opinion of the Doctor, the cause of death of the deceased was asphyxia due to
strangulation.

15. PW-4, Jalindra Singh has stated in his examination-in-chief that the deceased was his niece
and she was living with Rati Ram. He had gone to village Kinauni on 06.6.2009 with his cousin
Pradeep at about 3:45 PM. When he reached Kinauni, Rati Ram, deceased and his Mausi Premo
were present there. They stayed there for 30-45 minutes. During their stay, Vinod called the
deceased to prepare tea because her aunt was not at home. House of Vinod is attached to the house
of Rati Ram. The deceased went to the house of Vinod. After that he stayed there and returned to
his village. The deceased did not return. On 07.6.2009 at about 07:00 AM, they reached Sirauli
where people were gathered and dead body of Chanchal was lying. This fact was informed to
Kartar Singh by him. On the next day, Kartar Singh informed the police in writing about the said
fact.

16. PW-5, Pradeep in his examination-in-chief stated that on the date of incident he went to
village Kanauni at about 3:45-04:00 PM. Thereafter his cousin Jalendra has also come. He met Rati
Ram, Smt Premo and the deceased-Chanchal in the village. At that time accused-Vinod called the
deceased for preparing tea. Deceased-Chanchal went to the house of Vinod from roof. He left the
village about 10-15 minutes thereafter and by that time the deceased did not return. He received the
information about the death of the deceased on 07.6.2009. Thereafter, he met Kartar Singh and told
him about the said fact.

17. PW-6, Sube Singh in this examination-in-chief stated that on 06.6.2009 at about 09:30
PM, he received a call from Kartar Singh to go and find out about the injury of Rati Ram. When he
along with Kadam Singh went to village Kanauni, they came to know that every body was
searching the deceased. They also started searching the deceased. When they were searching the
deceased they saw accused Omkar and Vinod going with long stride at about 12:30 in the night. He
told the said fact to Kartar Singh on 12.06.2009.

18. PW-7, SI Tej Singh Yadav conducted the inquest on the dead body of the deceased and
prepared inquest report and other papers, Ext. Ka-3 to 7, sealed the dead body and sent if for postmortem through Constables Ramesh Chand and Surendrapal Singh.

19. PW-8, Pramod Kumar Sharma was the investigating officer of the case. He conducted
investigation and submitted charge sheet against the accused, Ext. Ka-10.

20. PW-9, Smt. Premo is the wife of Rati Ram. She has almost stated the facts, which have
been stated by PW-2, Rati Ram.

21. PW-10, Dr. Rakesh Chandra in his examination-in-chief deposed that on 13.06.2009, he
was posted at Health Centre Saroorpur as In-charge Medical Officer. On that date at 1:45 PM, he
110 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
examined accused-Vinod Kumar, son of Chandru, aged about 24 years, who was brought by Clerk
Constable Jagvir Gautam and found the following Injury on his person:

Linear abrasion 4.5 cm into vertically on the right side of face 5 cm away from right ear.

22. In the opinion of the doctor the injury was simple and caused by friction agent sharp
surface. The injury was about one week old, which he proved as Ext. Ka-15.

23. PW-11, Yashpal, in his examination-in-chief has stated that on 06.6.2009 at about 2-2-1/2
PM, he had gone to water the field and came back to his house at about 1:00 in the night. When he
came to village, he saw 10-15 persons sitting at the door of Rati Ram and were talking to each
other that Chanchal was missing. Out of the persons who gathered there, Rajbir, Kartar and Pratap
were his relative. When the deceased could not be found, they decided to lodge a report. Thereafter,
when he was coming to his house to wear clothes, he saw the dead body of the deceased in the heap
of bricks lying in the lane of Vinod. Thereafter, he came back to told the persons gathered there
about the dead body.

24. After the closure of prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused were recorded
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them and
claimed to be tried.

25. Learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (EC Act), Meerut after hearing the
learned counsel for the parties and assessing, evaluating and scrutinizing the evidence on record,
convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as indicated herein above.

26. Hence this appeal.

Submissions on behalf of the appellant

27. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that all the witnesses are close relatives and
that the testimony of the said witnesses falls in the category of wholly unreliable witnesses and as
such, the conviction cannot be sustained.

28. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that on the same evidence, co-accused
Omkar has been exonerated by the learned Trial Court. The appellant has also been acquitted under
Section 201 IPC.

Submission on behalf of State

29. Per contra Shri S.K. Ojha, learned Additional Government Advocate-I supported the
findings of the learned trial court by stating that the learned trial court has correctly martialled the
evidence and considered each and every aspect of the case while convicting the appellant and that
the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt.

Analysis and conclusion
4 All. Vinod Vs. State of U.P.
111

30. Heard Shri Sandeep Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri S.K. Ojha,
learned Additional Government Advocate-I, representing the State of U.P.

31. A witness in a crime is a vital component in the administration of justice. By providing
evidence related to the allegation of the offence, the witness fulfils a holy obligation of aiding the
court in discovering the truth or rather facts. That is why before presenting testimony, a witness
takes an oath in the name of God or makes a solemn statement that he/she will narrate the truth, the
entire truth and nothing but the truth. In our justice system, witnesses play a critical role in assisting
courts in making effective judgements, ensuring that justice is given to those who need it the most.

32. In the instant case, the first information report has been lodged by PW-1, Kartar Singh on
07.6.20209 at 07.00 AM in respect of the death of his daughter (deceased). On this application,
case crime No. 53 of 2009, under Section 302 IPC was registered at outpost Khiwai of Police
Station Saroorpur, district Meerut. However, the case was renumbered as case crime No. 170 of
2009, at Police Station Saroorpur, which was entered in GD vide report No. 31 at 18:35 hours. In
the first information report, no one was made as accused.

33. On the next day (08.6.2009) the first informant submitted another written report Paper No.
Aa 10/1 alleging therein that in addition to previous written report that his daughter was murdered
on 6th June, 2009 between 04:00 PM and 1:10 AM, after the post-mortem examination, when he
took the dead body of her daughter to his village, his cousin Pradeep, son of Vijendra and Jalindra,
son of Rajbir also reached his village and told him that on 06.06.2009, they had gone to village
Kinauni at the house of Rati Ram and met their niece Chanchal. They remained at the house of Rati
from from 4 to 5 PM and in their presence Vinod, son of Chandru called Chanchal to prepare 2-3
cup of tea stating that her aunt is not at home and his friend has come. At about 5 PM Chanchal
went there with tea. The first informant has made a suspicion that Vinod, son of Chandru had killed
her.

34. Again on 12.06.2009, the first informant had submitted third application Paper No. A 10/3
mentioning therein that his brother-in-law Sube Singh and Kadam, resident of Mukeem Pura,
district Baghpat told him that on the date of incident when they went to make water, they saw that
Vinod and Omkar alias Suda, son of Chandru throwing the dead body of Chanchal at the door of
Yashpal taking from the house of Vinod.

35. From the perusal of all the applications submitted by Kartar Singh, the first informant of
the case, it is clear that he has nominated the accused on the basis of information gathered in
piecemeal from his relatives and friends.

36. It is admitted facts that all the prosecution witnesses are related to each other. The rule of
prudence of the point of related and interested witnesses is that their evidence should be
meticulously and carefully examined. Before discussing the evidence prosecution witnesses, it
would be useful to refer to certain pronouncement of Hon'ble Supreme Court on the point of
related witnesses.

37. In Masalti Vs. State of U.P. (1964) 8 SCR 133 the Supreme Court observed:
112 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"But it would, we think, be unreasonable to contend that evidence given by witnesses should
be discarded only on the ground that it is evidence of partisan or interested witnesses. The
mechanical rejection of such evidence on the sole ground that it is partisan, would invariably lead
to failure of justice. No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to how much evidence should be
appreciated. Judicial approach has to be cautious in dealing with such evidence; but the plea that
such evidence should be rejected because it is partisan cannot be accepted as correct."

38. In Raju Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2012)4 SCC (Cri) 184 ,Hon'ble Supreme Court held as
under:

The sum and substance is that the evidence of a related or interested witness should be
meticulously and carefully examined. In a case where the related and interested witness may have
some enmity with the assailant, the bar would need to be raised and the evidence of the witness
would have to be examined by applying a standard of discerning scrutiny.

39. The aforesaid decision in Raju (Supra) was followed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Edakkandi Dineshan alias P. Dineshan and others Vs. State of Kerala, (2025) 3 SCC 273.

40. In Criminal Appeal No. 2490 of 2014 (Chhote Lal Vs. Rohtash and others), decided on
14.12.2023, Honble Supreme Court held as under:

It may not be out of context to mention that the appellant/complainant, a sole eyewitness,
happens to be the most interested witness being the father of the deceased and having long enmity
with the group to which the accused persons belong, therefore, his testimony was to be examined
with great caution and the High Court was justified in doing so and in doubting it so as to uphold
the conviction on his solitary evidence.

41. It would also be apt to refer certain pronouncement of Hon'ble Supreme Court on the point
of reliability of witnesses.

42. In Vadivelu Thevar Vs. State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 614, is the celebrated judement of
Hon'ble Supreme Court, in which it has been held as under:

Hence, in our opinion, it is a sound and well-established rule of law that the court is concerned
with the quality and not with the quantity of the evidence necessary for proving or disproving a
fact. Generally speaking, oral testimony in this context may be classified into three categories,
namely:

(1) Wholly reliable.

(2) Wholly unreliable.

(3) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.
4 All. Vinod Vs. State of U.P.
113

In the first category of proof, the court should have no difficulty in coming to its conclusion
either way - it may convict or may acquit on the testimony of a single witness, if it is found to be
above reproach or suspicion of interestedness, incompetence or subornation. In the second
category, the court equally has no difficulty in coming to its conclusion. It is in the third category
of cases, that the court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material
particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial. There is another danger in insisting on
plurality of witnesses. Irrespective of the quality of the oral evidence of a single witness, if courts
were to insist on plurality of witnesses in proof of any fact, they will be indirectly encouraging
subornation of witnesses. Situations may arise and do arise where only a single person is available
to give evidence in support of a disputed fact. The court naturally has to weigh carefully such a
testimony and if it is satisfied that the evidence is reliable and free from all taints which tend to
render oral testimony open to suspicion, it becomes its duty to act upon such testimony. The law
reports contain many precedents where the court had to depend and act upon the testimony of a
single witness in support of the prosecution. There are exceptions to this rule, for example, in cases
of sexual offences or of the testimony of an approver; both these are cases in which the oral
testimony is, by its very nature, suspect, being that of a participator in crime. But, where there are
no such exceptional reasons operating, it becomes the duty of the court to convict, if it is satisfied
that the testimony of a single witness is entirely reliable. We have therefore, no reasons to refuse to
act upon the testimony of the first witness, which is the only reliable evidence in support of the
prosecution.

43. Keeping in view the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgements referred to
above, we shall now proceed to discuss the evidence of prosecution witnesses.

44. PW-1, Kartar Singh is the father of the deceased and he lodged the first information report
and made applications dated 08.6.2009 and 12.06.2009 on the information furnished by the
witnesses. He was not the eyewitness of the case.

45. PW-2, Rati Ram, in whose house, the deceased was living, in his evidence PW-2, Rati
Ram has stated that on the date of occurrence at about 05:00 PM, accused-Vinod called the
deceased to his house for making tea as his wife was not at home. At that time, Pradeep, Jalendra
and his wife were also present there. Chanchal went to the house of Vinod. When Chanchal did not
come back, they made a search in the neighbourhood. He also went at the house of Vinod, but the
house was locked and Omkar and Vinod were not at home. Thereafter on receiving the phone call,
Kartar (PW-1), Jalendra (PW-4), Rajvir and Pradeep (PW-5) rushed to the spot at about 01:30 AM.
The dead body of Chanchal was lying at the brick kiln near the house of Yashpal. There was mark
of dragging from the house of Vinod up to brick kiln. The house of Vinod was locked. The door of
southern side of the house was opened and green paint which was on the room, was also got on the
clothes of the deceased. In his cross examination, PW-2 has stated that when he started search, first
of all, he went to the house of Tejpal and thereafter he went to the house of Jhunde, Satpal and
Bhukhan and in last he went to the house of Vinod.

46. From the perusal of evidence of PW-2, it transpires that when he had the knowledge about
dragging of the deceased from the house of Vinod up to the brick kiln before lodging the first
information report as well as going of the deceased to the house of Vinod, this Court failed to
114 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
understand as to why he has not told this fact to PW-1, Kartar Singh and why he had not gone to
the house of Vinod first when he was sure that the deceased had gone to the house of Vinod.
Further, as per the examination-in-chief of PW-2, at about 01:30 in the night Jalendra (PW-4),
Rajvir and Pradeep (PW-5) reached his house along with first informant Kartar Singh, whereas in
the application given to the police by the first informant on 08.6.2009, paper No. Aa 10/1 has stated
that he received information from PW-4 Jalendra that Vinod called the deceased for preparing tea
at 05:00 PM on 06.6.2009.

47. PW-4, Jalendra Singh claims himself to be uncle of the deceased. In this case the incident
in question took place at about 05:00 PM on 06.06.2009 and the dead body of the deceased was
recovered at about 01:30 AM in the night intervening 06/07.6.2009 and the first information report
of the incident was lodged at 07:00 in the morning of 07.6.2009. In his cross-examination, PW-4,
Jalendra Singh has stated he did not receive any information by 07:00 PM on 07.6.2009 that
Chanchal has been killed and that he has not received any information from the house of Rati Ram
about the death of the deceased. Whereas PW-2, Rati Ram in his evidence has stated that PW-4
Jalendra Singh reached the spot in the night intervening 6/7/.6.2009 at about 01:30. It is unlikely
that PW-4, Jalendra Singh, who is uncle of the deceased had no knowledge about the death of the
deceased, who was his niece even after recovery of the dead body. Further, there is contradiction in
the statement of PW-2 Rati Ram and PW-4, Jalendra Singh.

48. PW-5, In his cross-examination, which was recorded on 06.1.2012, has stated that on the
date of incident he went to the house of Rati Ram alone on motorcycle, which belonged to his
neighbour Robi. He does not have any motorcycle. He further stated that on the date of incident he
went to the house of Rati Ram on the motorcycle, which belongs to the friend of Jalendra. On the
date of incident (06.06.2009) before going to village Kinauni, he met Kartar Singh, who asked him
to visit Kinauni. However, at other place of his cross-examination, he stated that till 07:00 PM on
07.6.2009, he did not have any conversation with Kartar Singh. In view of the above discrepancies
in his evidence, it can safely be inferred that he is totally unreliable witness.

49. PW-6, Sube Singh is the brother-in-law (Sala) of the first informant. In this examinationin-chief, he stated that on 06.6.2009 at about 09:30 PM, he received a call from Kartar Singh to go
and find out about the injury of Rati Ram. When he along with Kadam Singh went to village
Kanauni, they came to know that every body was searching the deceased. They also started
searching the deceased. When they were searching the deceased they saw accused Omkar and
Vinod going with long stride at about 12:30 in the night. He told the said fact to Kartar Singh on
12.06.2009. The aforesaid statement of PW-6, Sube Singh, who is brother-in-law (Sala) of the first
informant is too hard to swallow inasmuch as he has informed the first informant about the said fact
only on 12.06.2009.

50. PW-9, Premo, wife of Rati Ram in her evidence has stated that when it was discovered that
the body of the deceased was lying at the heap of bricks, every body went to see the dead body.
There was mark of dragging from the house of Vinod up to brick kiln/heap of bricks.

51. From the perusal of evidence of PW-9 also, it transpires that she had got the knowledge
about dragging of the deceased from the house of Vinod up to the brick kiln before lodging the first
4 All. Merino Industries Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
115
information report as well as going of the deceased to the house of Vinod, but this Court failed to
understand as to why s has not told this fact to PW-1, Kartar Singh.

52. PW-11, Yashpal is the brother of PW-2, Rati Ram. He has only seen the dead body lying
beside his house on the heap of bricks.

53. From the perusal of the above evidence of the witnesses, it can be safely be inferred that
their evidences are full of discrepancies and they can be termed as wholly unreliable witnesses. It
can also be held that this is a case of no evidence and the evidence has been fabricated in piecemeal
to drag the appellant in the present case.

54. In view of the above, the judgement dated 07.10.2015 and order dated 08.10.2015 passed
by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Meerut in Sessions Trial No. 207 of
2010, arising out of Case Crime No. 170 of 2009, under Section 302/201 IPC, Police Station
Saroorpur, district Meerut are set aside. The appellant-Vinod is acquitted of the charge levelled
against him.

55. The appeal is allowed.

56. The appellant is on bail. His bail bond is cancelled and sureties are discharged.

57. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the court concerned for compliance and
compliance report be submitted to this Court within two months.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 115
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 10039 of 2022

Merino Industries Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
Issue pertains to whether the order passed by the Magistrate u/s 133 Cr.P.C. directing immediate closure of
boiler installed in the petitioner's factory was legally sustainable when the petitioner had filed objections to the
show cause notice, but no opportunity was afforded to adduce evidence and the mandatory procedure
prescribed u/s 138 Cr.P.C. had not been followed.

Headnotes
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss. 133(1), 138 - Public nuisance - Closure of factory boiler -
Magistrate - Not considered evidence - No opportunity of hearing - Statutory compliance -