# Vishal Tyagi & Anr v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2026) 1 ILRA 372
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-01-27
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 10956 of 2025
- **Bench:** Anil Kumar-X
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vishal-tyagi-anr-v-state-of-u-p-anr-54015
- **Pages:** 6

## Text

372 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

44. The appellant-Naresh Chaudhary is on bail. His bail bond is cancelled and sureties are
discharged. He is directed to surrender before the court concerned forthwith to serve out the
remaining sentence awarded by the Trial Court.

45. Office is directed to send a copy of this judgment along with record of this case to the
court concerned/learned Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad forthwith for immediate compliance and
compliance report be submitted to this Court.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 372
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED:ALLAHABAD- 27.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 10956 of 2025

Vishal Tyagi & Anr. ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Issue for consideration
The appeal involves the conviction of two school staff members for allegedly abusing and threatening their
Principal. The trial court convicted them based on the Principal's initial testimony despite all witnesses turning
hostile.

Headnotes
Indian Penal Code,1860-Section 504, 506, Criminal Procedure Code,1973-Section 161, Evidence
Act,1872-Section 145-Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989Section 3(1)(da)d-Testimony of hostile witness-legality of-Abuse and threatening to the
Principal over a salary dispute-During trial, all prosecution witnesses including the informant,
turned hostile-Pw-1 supported the case in examination -in-chief but resiled during crossexamination-The trial court committed error by treating the Investigating officers testimony as
primary evidence to establish the truth of the oral evidence- A witness stated under section 161
CrPC cannot be treated as substantive evidence-Appellants acquitted.(Para 13 to 18) (E-6)
Held
The court held that Testimony of Investigating officer is not substantive evidence; it is only corroborative in
nature. testimony of eyewitnesses and victim constitutes substantive evidence. Law mandates that
corroboration is required to support substantive evidence and not that substantive evidence is to be proved by
seeking support from corroborative evidence. Trial court convicted the appellants solely on the basis of partial
testimony of hostile witness, without lawful corroboration and without confronting the witness with his
previous statement. The findings recorded by the learned trial court are perverse and contrary to law. Appeal
allowed.
Case law Cited
Vinod Kumar Vs State of Punjab (2015) 3 SCC 220, State of U.P. Vs Ramesh Prasad & Ors., AIR 1996 SC
2766, Ram Swaroop Vs State of Rajasthan , AIR 2004 SC 2243, Neeraj Dutta Vs State (Govt. of N.C.T. of
Delhi), AIR Online 2022 SC 1160, V.K. Mishra Vs State of Uttarakhand (2015) 9 SCC 588, Renuka Prasad Vs
State of (2025 INSC 657)-referred to.
1 All. Vishal Tyagi & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
373
List of Acts
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Criminal Procedure Code,1973, Evidence Act,1872, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled
Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989.

List of Keywords
Hostile witness, Corroboration, Substantive Evidence, Investigating Officer Testimony, Confrontation of
witness, Perverse finding.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 10956 of 2025

Vishal Tyagi & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
From the Judgment and order dated 27.01.2026 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

Appearances for Parties
Adv. for Appellant(s):-
Vivek Sharma
Adv. for Respondent(s):-
G.A.,

(Delivered by Hon'ble Anil Kumar-X, J.)

1. Heard Shri Vivek Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants, and Shri K.K. Gupta, learned
AGA for the State. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent/informant to oppose the appeal
despite notice, as per office report, has been duly served on him.

2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the 'SC/ST Act') has been preferred
by the appellants - Vishal Tyagi and Samod Kumar @ Samod Kumr Tyagi with a prayer to allow
the appeal and set aside the judgment and order dated 01.10.2025 passed by the Additional District
and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Amroha, in S.S.T. No. 462 of 2020 (State vs.
Vishal Tyagi and another), arising out of Case Crime No. 08 of 2020, under Sections 504, 506 PartI IPC and Section 3(1)(da) of the SC/ST Act, Police Station Adampur, District Amroha.

3. By the impugned judgment dated 01.10.2025, the accused Vishal Tyagi and Samod Kumar
Tyagi were convicted under Sections 504 and 506 Part-I IPC and acquitted of the charge under
Section 3(1)(da) of the SC/ST Act. Instead of sentencing, the learned trial court extended the
benefit of probation to the accused persons and directed their release on furnishing a bond in an
amount to be determined by the office, with or without surety, before the District Probation Officer
for maintaining peace and good behaviour for a period of one year, with a stipulation that in case of
default, the question of punishment may be considered. Further, under Section 5 of the Probation of
Offenders Act, the accused were directed to pay compensation of ?25,000/- to the victim/informant.

Factual matrix of case

4. First information report (Ex. Ka-1) was lodged by PW-1 Chhotey Lal, In-charge Principal,
Gramodyay Inter College, Gangeswari, District Amroha, at Police Station Adampur. The informant
374 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
alleged that the accused Vishal Tyagi, Clerk, and Samod Kumar Tyagi, Assistant Teacher, abused
him and used caste-based slurs when he asked them to produce the salary slip of the month of
November. It was further alleged that other teachers present in the office intervened and took the
accused persons out of the office. On the basis of the written report, an FIR in Case Crime No. 008
of 2020 under Sections 504 and 506 IPC was registered against the accused persons. During
investigation, PW-6, Circle Officer Satyendra Singh, conducted the investigation and submitted a
charge-sheet against the accused persons under Sections 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(da) of the
SC/ST Act.

5. The prosecution examined six witnesses to substantiate its case. PW-1 Chhotey Lal stated
that he was posted as In-charge Principal of Gramodyay Inter College Gangeswari on 27.11.2019.
On the said date, accused Vishal Tyagi came to his office and requested him to pass the salary bill
for the month of December. When PW-1 asked him to place the pay bill of November 2019 first,
the accused refused. Thereafter, accused Vishal Tyagi arrived along with his uncle, accused Samod
Tyagi, and both started abusing and threatening him. On hearing the commotion, other teachers
came to the office and intervened, thereby taking the accused persons out. PW-1 further stated that
both accused abused him and used caste-based slurs in the presence of other teachers.

6. PW-2 Mahendra Singh stated that on the alleged date he was teaching in his class and
around 2:00 p.m. he heard noises from the Principal?s office. He stated that both accused were
posted in the same college and that they were not involved in the alleged offence. PW-3 Harendra
Singh and PW-4 Suraj Kumar Sharma, who were also teachers in the same institution, denied the
prosecution allegations. PW-5 Vivek Kumar, Constable Clerk, proved the chik FIR (Ex. Ka-2) and
the relevant GD entry (Ex. Ka-3). PW-6 Circle Officer Satyendra Singh stated that he recorded the
statements of the witnesses and submitted the charge-sheet (Ex. Ka-4) before the court.

Findings of Trial Court

7. The learned trial court observed that the informant PW-1 supported the prosecution case
during examination-in-chief but resiled from his statement during cross-examination. The
remaining witnesses also turned hostile. Relying upon settled principles of law, the trial court held
that the testimony of a hostile witness cannot be discarded in toto and that the portion of testimony
supporting the prosecution case can be relied upon. The learned trial court placed reliance upon the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab reported in (2015) 3 SCC
220, wherein it was held that undue delay in cross-examination may result in witnesses turning
hostile due to influence or intimidation, and in such circumstances, their testimony cannot be
outrightly discarded.

8. The learned trial court further relied upon the judgment in State of U.P. vs. Ramesh Prasad
& Ors., AIR 1996 SC 2766, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when hostile witnesses
have corroborated the prosecution version during investigation and such fact is deposed by the
Investigating Officer, their testimony cannot be discarded merely on account of their denial during
trial.
1 All. Vishal Tyagi & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
375

9. On the basis of the aforesaid judgments of the Supreme Court, the learned trial court
concluded that although PW-1 turned hostile during cross-examination, he had supported the
prosecution version in his examination-in-chief, and therefore, his testimony could not be
disbelieved. The learned trial court further observed that staff members working in the same
institution are susceptible to influence over time. The corroboration by the Investigating Officer
regarding the statements of witnesses during investigation was treated as a supporting
circumstance. The learned trial court also observed that there was no reason to disbelieve the
Investigating Officer, a gazetted officer, who had no motive to falsely implicate the accused
persons. Accordingly, the learned trial court held that the prosecution had proved its case beyond
reasonable doubt for offences under Sections 504 and 506 IPC. However, the accused were
acquitted under Section 3(1)(da) of the SC/ST Act on the ground that the alleged occurrence arose
out of a dispute between the Principal and staff members and it could not be inferred that the
offence was committed on account of the informant's caste. The benefit of probation was extended
in lieu of sentence.

Arguments on behalf of appellants

10. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the FIR was lodged after a delay of nine
days and the prosecution failed to satisfactorily explain the same. It was further argued that the site
plan was prepared by S.I. Dharmendra Kumar on 29.01.2020 but was not proved during trial,
which casts serious doubt on the prosecution case. It was contended that PW-1 did not support the
prosecution version during cross-examination and that PW-2, PW-3 PW-4 were declared hostile
and did not corroborate the prosecution story. Learned counsel submitted that reliance upon hostile
witnesses without independent corroboration is contrary to settled principles of law. While it is true
that testimony of a hostile witness cannot be discarded entirely, its credibility must be tested in
light of surrounding circumstances. Reliance was placed upon Ram Swaroop vs. State of
Rajasthan, AIR 2004 SC 2243, wherein the Supreme Court held that accepting the testimony of a
hostile witness without satisfactory corroboration is impermissible. It was argued that reliance upon
the examination-in-chief of PW-1 alone, without corroboration, is perverse and illegal, rendering
the impugned judgment unsustainable.

Arguments on behalf of State

11. Per contra, learned AGA Shri K.K. Gupta submitted that it is well settled that the
testimony of a hostile witness is not to be discarded in its entirety and that the prosecution is
entitled to rely upon those portions of testimony which support its case. It was contended that the
statement of PW-1 sufficiently establishes the occurrence dated 27.12.2019 and that there was no
reason for the Principal to falsely implicate his staff members. PW-1 supported the prosecution
case during investigation and independent witnesses also corroborated the prosecution version
before the Investigating Officer. PW-6, the Investigating Officer, categorically stated that all
witnesses corroborated the FIR during investigation, which itself constitutes corroborative
evidence. As regards the site plan, it was submitted that although it was not proved, there is no
dispute regarding the place of occurrence. Therefore, the findings recorded by the learned trial
court do not suffer from any infirmity and the conviction does not warrant interference.
376 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Conclusion

12. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused
the entire record including the impugned judgment.

13. It is evident that all prosecution witnesses turned hostile during trial. P.W.-1 though
supported prosecution during examination in chief, but turned hostile in his cross examination.
Relying solely upon his examination-in-chief, learned Trial Court concluded that prosecution story
stands proved. It is true that there is no legal prohibition against convicting an accused on the basis
of testimony of a hostile witness, but it cannot be accepted blindly. In Neeraj Dutta vs State
(Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi), AIR Online 2022 SC 1160, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that merely
because a witness is declared hostile, his entire testimony does not become useless. If the part of his
evidence is supported by other facts or reliable evidence on record, it can still be considered by the
Court. Therefore, there is no legal prohibition against convicting an accused on the basis of
testimony of a hostile witness, provided it is corroborated by other trustworthy evidence. Similarly
in Ram Swaroop (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that conviction cannot be based upon
the testimony of a hostile witness in the absence of reliable corroboration. Hence, approach of Trial
Court in placing reliance upon uncorroborated testimony of P.W.-1 is untenable.

14. Similarly, learned trial court committed a manifest error in placing reliance upon the
statement of the Investigating Officer to the effect that the witnesses had supported the prosecution
version during the course of investigation. The Hon?ble Supreme Court has consistently held that
the statement of an Investigating Officer regarding what a witness stated under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
cannot be treated as substantive evidence. Unless the witness himself is confronted with his
previous statement in accordance with Section 145 of the Evidence Act, such statements cannot be
used either for corroboration or contradiction. Mere deposition of the Investigating Officer does not
cure this defect. In the case of V.K. Mishra vs. State of Uttarakhand (2015) 9 SCC 588, it has
been held by Hon?ble Supreme Court that previous statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. can be
used only after due confrontation of the witness and not otherwise. It has further been reiterated
that the Investigating Officer's testimony cannot substitute such confrontation.

15. In the present case, PW-1 was never confronted with his alleged statement recorded under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. Learned Trial Court has further observed that Investigating Officer, in his
deposition, stated that witnesses of fact had supported prosecution case during investigation. Such
an approach is contrary to settled principles governing appreciation of evidence. Testimony of
Investigating Officer is not substantive evidence; it is only corroborative in nature. In the present
case, testimony of eyewitnesses and victim constitutes substantive evidence. Law mandates that
corroboration is required to support substantive evidence and not that substantive evidence is to be
proved by seeking support from corroborative evidence. Oral testimony of witnesses may be
corroborated or contradicted by testimony of Investigating Officer, but testimony of Investigating
Officer cannot be treated as primary evidence to establish truthfulness of oral evidence.

16. It will be relevant to refer to the judgment of Renuka Prasad v. State (2025 INSC 657)
where it was confronted with similar issue, i,e. witnesses turning hostile but Investigating Officer
deposing before Court that witnesses have supported prosecution version during investigation.
1 All. Lal Ji Yadav Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
377
Supreme Court herein held that conviction cannot be sustained merely on suspicion or on
statements recorded during investigation. In that case, the trial court had acquitted the accused in a
murder case because most prosecution witnesses turned hostile and the alleged eyewitness failed to
identify the accused. However, the High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted the accused
mainly by relying on the testimony of the Investigating Officer, who stated that witnesses had
supported the prosecution case during investigation under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court
set aside the High Court judgment and restored the acquittal, holding that statements under Section
161 Cr.P.C. are not substantive evidence and cannot be used to convict unless the witness affirms
them in court.

17. Therefore, the corroboration drawn from the testimony of the Investigating Officer is not
permissible in law. Reliance placed by the learned trial court on such inadmissible material makes
the finding legally unsustainable. In view of the above settled legal position, the approach adopted
by the learned trial court in convicting the appellants solely on the basis of partial testimony of a
hostile witness, without lawful corroboration and without confronting the witness with his previous
statement, is clearly erroneous. The findings recorded by the learned trial court are therefore
perverse, contrary to law, and unsustainable in the eyes of law, and the impugned judgment
warrants interference by this Court.

18. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order dated 01.10.2025 passed by the Additional
District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Amroha, in S.S.T. No. 462 of 2020 (State
vs. Vishal Tyagi and another), arising out of Case Crime No. 08 of 2020, under Sections 504, 506
Part-I IPC and Section 3(1)(da) of the SC/ST Act is hereby set aside, and this criminal appeal is
allowed.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 377
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 7 of 2026

Lal Ji Yadav ...Appellant
Versus
National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether, in the absence of a transport endorsement and permit, the owner of the offending
vehicle can be fastened with liability to pay compensation, or whether the insurer remains liable, when the
vehicle falls within the category of a light motor vehicle (LMV) and the driver possessed a valid LMV (Private)
driving licence.

Headnotes