# Yashpal Singh Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 10 ILRA 1004
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-10-13
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 2431 of 1999
- **Bench:** Umesh Chandra Sharma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/yashpal-singh-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49250
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Criminal Law: Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 307, 504 & 506 - Against order of
acquittal - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
Section 313 - At time of incident, political
rivalry existed between parties - Case against
revisionist is weaker, as compared to opposite
parties 2 to 5, where two individuals sustained
firearm injuries and charge sheet filed against
revisionist
&
ors.
after
investigation
-
Judgment of acquittal was passed while crosscase still pending - Had both cases been
decided together, opposite party nos. 2 to 5
could have relied on acquittal in their defense
- Though neither Cr.P.C. nor Indian Evidence
Act contains specific provisions for joint trial of
cross-cases, judicial precedents from Apex
Court and High Courts have guided trial courts
to try such cases together to avoid procedural
inconvenience - All criminal courts in Uttar
Pradesh directed to decide cross-cases jointly
after recording evidence - Prosecution failed
to establish charges against opposite party
beyond reasonable doubt - Acquittal order
proper, warrants no interference in revisional
jurisdiction. (Para 18, 20 to 23)

Revision dismissed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

1004 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Pilibhit. The period of probation would
start from the date when they execute the
aforesaid bonds and undertaking. In case
they do not comply with the order of this
Court regarding probation, they shall serve
the sentence awarded under Section 323
read with Section 34 IPC as directed by the
trial court and shall also undergo for two
years simple imprisonment and Rs.1,000/-
fine with default stipulation of six months
additional
imprisonment
for
the
commission of offence under Section 324
read with Section 34 IPC.

49. A copy of this order alongwith the
lower court record be sent to the CJM,
Pilibhit and a copy of this order be also
provided to the District Probation Officer,
Pilibhit,
for
necessary
compliance
and
consignment of original records.

----------
(2023) 10 ILRA 1004
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.10.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 2431 of 1999

Yashpal Singh ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Shamsher Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Sri Jagdev Singh

Criminal Law: Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 307, 504 & 506 - Against order of
acquittal - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
Section 313 - At time of incident, political
rivalry existed between parties - Case against
revisionist is weaker, as compared to opposite
parties 2 to 5, where two individuals sustained
firearm injuries and charge sheet filed against
revisionist
&
ors.
after
investigation
-
Judgment of acquittal was passed while crosscase still pending - Had both cases been
decided together, opposite party nos. 2 to 5
could have relied on acquittal in their defense
- Though neither Cr.P.C. nor Indian Evidence
Act contains specific provisions for joint trial of
cross-cases, judicial precedents from Apex
Court and High Courts have guided trial courts
to try such cases together to avoid procedural
inconvenience - All criminal courts in Uttar
Pradesh directed to decide cross-cases jointly
after recording evidence - Prosecution failed
to establish charges against opposite party
beyond reasonable doubt - Acquittal order
proper, warrants no interference in revisional
jurisdiction. (Para 18, 20 to 23)

Revision dismissed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. Nathilal & ors. Vs St. of U.P., 1990 Supp SCC 145
(Para 2)

2. St. of M.P. Vs Mishri Lal, (2003) 9 SCC 426

3. Pradeep Kumar Dubey Vs St. of U.P. & anr.,
Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 20241 of 2021

(Delivered by Hon'ble Umesh Chandra
Sharma, J.)

1. None responded for the revisionist
even on the revised call and also none appeared
on behalf of opposite party nos. 2 to 5. Since a
criminal revision has to be decided on merit,
therefore, heard Sri Mithilesh Kumar
learned A.G.A. for the State, perused the
record and thereafter revision is decided on
merit.

2. This revision has been preferred
against the judgment and order of acquittal
dated
7.10.1999
passed
by
learned
Additional Sessions Judge, IIIrd, Bijnor, in
S.T. No. 122 of 1999 arising out of Case
10 All. Yashpal Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1005
Crime No. 94 -A of 1996, under Section
307, 504 & 506 I.P.C., Police Station
Noorpur, District- Bijnor.

3. In brief, facts of the case are that
informant,Yashpal
Singh,
moved
a
complaint to P.S. Noorpur to lodge an
F.I.R. on 19.4.1996 that due to enmity
when the informant with his son
Narendra Singh and nephews Jaipal and
Gopal was on his field, the accused
Hukum
Singh,
Chandrapal
Singh,
Tikam Singh and Digvijay Singh armed
with illegal gun and country made
pistol reached there. Hukum Singh
exhorted other accused persons to kill
them on which all the accused persons
fired towards them. They laid down on
the ground and saved themselves.
Pratap Singh and Sukhpal Singh and
others witnessed the incident. On being
challenged by them, accused persons
left the place with a threat to kill them.

4. The complaint, Ex. Ka-1, was
entertained and an F.I.R. bearing Case
Crime No. 94-A of 1996 under Section
307, 504 and 506 was lodged and chik,
Ex. Ka-2, was prepared. The I.O. was
deputed who recorded the statements of
the victim and other witnesses, prepared
site plan, Ex Ka-3 and submitted
charge-sheet
Ex.Ka-4
against
the
accused
persons
and
charge-sheet,
Ex.Ka-5, against Digvijay Singh. After
preparation of chik F.I.R., carbon copy
G.D., Ex. Ka-6, was prepared.

5. The accused persons appeared
in the Court and were enlarged on bail.
The learned trial Court framed the
charge on 18.5.1999 under the aforesaid
sections.

6. The prosecution examined
following witnesses to prove its case:

1
Yashpal
Singh,
informant
PW1
2
Veerbhan
Singh
PW2

7. The prosecution closed the
evidence as from the side of defence,
execution of documentary evidences
were accepted and they were exhibited.
The statements of the accused persons
under
Section
313
Cr.P.C.
were
recorded
wherein
they
denied
the
prosecution version, evidence and stated
that they were falsely implicated on
account of political rivalry.

8. In defence, accused persons
submitted a carbon copy of the chik F.I.R.
of Case Crime No. 94 of 1996 under
Section 307 & 506 I.P. C. and certified
copy of its charge-sheet, site plan, injury
reports of Tikam Singh, Yashpal Singh,
Chandrapal Singh and concerned G.D.
were produced.

9. After hearing the arguments of the
parties, the impugned judgment of acquittal
was passed.

10. Being aggrieved, the present
revision
has
been preferred
by the
informant-revisionist on the following
grounds:

(a) that the trial court has
acquitted the accused persons without
considering the evidence on record which
is bad in the eye of law;
1006 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(b) the trial court has erred in
discarding the evidence of eye witnesses
without any reasonable explanation, the
findings are perverse and illegal.

(c) the trial court has not given
any finding as to which party was
aggressor;

(d) the incident occurred near the
field of the revisionist which shows that the
accused persons were aggressor and this
fact is also established from the site plan;

(e) the opposite party nos. 2 to
5/accused persons are inimical with the
revisionist due to village politics that is
why they have reached on the field of the
revisionist with their weapons and opened
fire on him and his relatives while they
were working on their field;

(f) there is no explanation of the
presence of the accused persons on the spot
at the time of the incident;

(g) the trial court has wrongly
acquitted the accused persons without
giving any specific finding;

(h) the opposite party nos. 2 to 5
were aggressor so this court may graciously
be pleased to set aside the acquittal order
passed in favour of the opposite party nos.
2 to 5.

Findings:

About the place of occurrence.

11. According to the revisionist when
he and his family members were working
on their field, the opposite party no. 2 to 5
reached there and committed the alleged
crime in which no injury has been caused
to any of the members of the revisionist's
side. Contrary to that according to the
opposite party no 3, the informant along
with Veerpal Singh came and opened fire
with the intention to kill them. The place of
occurrence alleged by the defence is
accurately proved rather the place of
occurrence proposed by the prosecution.
Even though the formal proof of the
prosecution
documents
have
been
dispensed with and exhibited the same is
not sufficient to prove the veracity of the
prosecution case. When the opposite
parties/accused persons were present at the
government tubewell, no injury has been
received by the revisionist or his family
members but two persons of the opposite
party namely Tikam Singh and Chandrapal
Singh received fire arm injury.

The description of the injuries
read as such:

(a) Tikam Singh was examined
at emergency ward in Pd. Deen Dayal
Hospital just after the incident and the
doctor found following injury;

Fire arm wound of entry 0.4 cm.
X 0.4 cm rounded over the (L) side
forehead 3.5 cm above the vertical end
of(L) eyebrow surrounded by swelling in
area of 2 cm X 1.5 cm, clotted blood
present.

X-ray of forehead was advised.

(b) A supplementary report of
the injury of Tikam Singh was prepared
and in the X-ray following injury was
noted:

"
Single
radioopic
metallic
density shadow seen"

(c) At the same time accused
Chandra Pal Singh was also examined by
10 All. Yashpal Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1007
the concerned doctor and following injury
was noted;

Firearm wound of entry 0.3 cm X
0.3 cm. On the (L) lateral aspect of chest 15
cm below (L) Nipple at 5 (0) clock rotation
clotted blood present. No tatooing, no
blackening & no scorching visible. Wound
is surrounded by traumatic swelling 1.5 cm
X 1 cm.

X ray was advised.

(d) In the supplementary report/
X-ray following injury was noted:

"
Single
radioopic
metallic
density shadow seen"

12. The learned trial Court has
recorded the finding that the revisionist
side had no injury and no independent
witness has been examined in this regard
by the prosecution. In absence of any injury
and also that no independent witness had
deposed in favour of the prosecution, the
learned trial Court did not believe the
testimonies of the P.W.1 and P.W.2.

13. It has also been recorded by the
learned trial Court that the prosecution
could not give any explanation of the
injuries caused to the accused persons
which
makes
the
prosecution
story
suspicious. The learned trial Court also
noted that if no visible injury was caused to
the accused persons, the prosecution would
not be under the obligation to explain the
same but since the visible fire-arm injury
were caused to two of the accused persons,
in that case it was mandatory for the
prosecution to explain such injuries as to
how it had occurred, if no attack was made
by the revisionist's side.

14. The learned trial Court has also
recorded
certain
variations
in
the
statements of the witnesses and the
contents of the F.I.R. According to the
F.I.R., accused Hukum Singh and Digvijay
Singh were armed with countrymade pistol
but the informant P.W.1 has deposed that
two persons had countrymade pistol and
two were armed with lathis. According to
Yashpal Singh, informant, P.W.1, accused
Digvijay Singh and Tikam Singh were
armed with countrymade pistol whereas
Hukum Singh and Chandrapal Singh were
armed with lathi. Contrary to that P.W.2,
Veerbhan Singh has deposed that all the
persons were armed with countrymade
pistol and none of them were having lathi.
The learned trial Court has rightly
considered the above contradictions and
has rightly concluded that the story has
falsely been concocted as a counter blast to
the case already lodged from the side of
defence.

15. The learned trial Court has also
concluded that if four accused persons had
fired on the revisionist and his family
members why none of the person has not
sustained any gun shot injury which
falsifies the prosecution story.

16. The learned trial court has not
tried the cross-case Crime No. 94 of 1996
under Section 307, 506 I.P.C. P.S. Noorpur
Bijnor together in which the revisionist's
side has been accused and of which F.I.R.
was lodged prior to the F.I.R. of the
revisionist.

17. The learned trial Court reiterated
the principle that enmity is a double edged
weapon due to which an offence may be
caused and a person can also be falsely
implicated in a false case.
1008 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

18. Certainly at the time of the
incident, enmity was existing between both
the parties in connection of political rivalry.
According to this Court in comparison to
the case of the revisionist, the case of
opposite party nos. 2 to 5/accused persons
is stronger in which two members of
opposite parties have received two fire-arm
injuries and after investigation a chargesheet under Section 307, 504 & 506 I.P.C.
had been submitted against the revisionist
and other persons of his side.

19. It is matter of concern that if two
cases are the cross-cases of each other, both
the cases should be decided together to
avoid difference of opinion and also to
conclude as to which party was the
aggressor and which party acted in exercise
of private defence.

20. It appears that in this matter when
the judgment and order of acquittal was
passed on 7.10.1999, the trial of cross-case
was pending otherwise the opposite party
nos. 2 to 5 would have produced the
judgment of the same in this revision to get
the benefit of the same.

21. According to this Court it is a
wrong practice not to decide two cross
cases together by the same Court.

(a) Though, there is no provision
in Cr.P.C. or in the Indian Evidence Act
regarding the trial of cross-cases, however,
in some judicial precedents the trial Courts
have been guided by the Apex Court and
High Court as well to decide the crosscases together to avoid any inconvenience
and difference of opinion.

(b) In Nathilal and Others Vs.
State of U.P., 1990 Supp SCC 145, the
Apex Court has issued guidelines that the
same judge should try both the cases and
the learned judge should hear one case after
the other. Para 2 of the judgment is as
under:

"We think that the fair procedure
to adopt in a matter like the present where
there are cross cases, is to direct that the
same learned Judge must try both cross
cases one after the other. After the
recording of evidence in one case is
completed, he must hear the arguments but
he must reserve the judgment. Thereafter
he must proceed to hear the cross case and
after recording all the evidence he must
hear the arguments but reserve the
judgment in that case. The same learned
Judge must thereafter dispose of the
matters by two separate judgments. In
deciding each of the cases, he can rely only
on the evidence recorded in that particular
case. The evidence recorded in the cross
case cannot be looked into. Nor can the
judge be influenced by whatever is argued
in the cross case. Each case must be
decided on the basis of the evidence which
has been placed on record in that
particular case without being influenced in
any manner by the evidence or arguments
urged in the cross case. But both the
judgments must be pronounced by the same
learned Judge one after the other

(c) Similarly in State of M.P. Vs.
Mishri Lal, (2003) 9 SCC 426, where both
the parties had lodged F.I.R. against each
other in respect of the same incident, the
Apex
Court
has
made
following
observations which are as under:

"It would have been just fair and
proper to decide both the cases together by
the same court in view of the guidelines
devised by this Court in Nathilal's case
(supra). The cross- cases should be tried
10 All. Munesh & Ors. State of U.P. & Anr.
1009
together by the same court irrespective of
the nature of the offence involved. The
rational behind this is to avoid the
conflicting judgments over the same
incident because if cross cases are allowed
to be tried by two courts separately there is
likelihood of conflicting judgments."

In this case it has also been
emphasized by the Apex Court that the
investigating officer in cross-cases should
be the same.

(d)
Further
this
Court
has
observed in the matter of Pradeep Kumar
Dubey Vs. State of U.P. And Another,
Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 20241
of 2021 that in an event of cross-cases both
the cases should be tried by the same Court
to avoid technical and other difficulties
arising out of the order of one and another.

22. Therefore, it is imperative to issue
a direction to all the criminal courts of the
State of U.P. to decide the cross-cases
together after recording the evidence.

23. On the basis of above, this Court
is of the view that the prosecution has
miserably failed in proving the charge
against the opposite party nos.2 to 5
beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the
order of acquittal passed in favour of the
opposite party nos. 2 to 5 is just and proper
and needs no interference by this Court in
exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

24. Accordingly, this revision being
devoid of merit is dismissed. The impugned
order of acquittal is affirmed.

25. The Registrar General of this
Court is directed to circulate the directions
contained in paragraphs 19, 21 & 22 of
the judgment to all the criminal courts of
the State of U.P. for compliance
----------
(2023) 10 ILRA 1009
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN
MISHRA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 2828 of 2023

Munesh & Ors. ...Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Revisionists:
Sri Shiv Badan

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Sri Pankaj Kushwaha, Sarika

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 302/34 & 201 - Code of Criminal
Procedure,1973 - Section 216 - Against
dismissal of alteration of charge - FIR
dated 01.04.2022 under Section 364 IPC
alleges that informant's brother went
missing on 29.03.2022 - He was in regular
contact with accused persons, who are
suspected to know his whereabouts -
Although charge sheet was filed under
Section 306
IPC, trial court framed
charges on 07.07.2022 - This decision was
based on witness St.ments, including that
of deceased's mother and other witnesses,
which
indicated
that
accused
had
threatened deceased and later drowned
him, disposing of body in Yamuna river -
Criminal
revision
against
framing
of
charges dismissed, granting liberty to
seek alteration under Section 216 Cr.P.C. -
Rejected - In Vibhuti Narayan Chaubey
(infra), Court held that once charge is
framed, it must lead to either acquittal or
conviction - Charge can be withdrawn
under Section 224 Cr.P.C. after judgment -
Section
216
Cr.P.C.
allows
only
for