RAMAYAN AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P.

                                                Reserved on : 3.7.2026.
                                                Delivered on : 1.10.2026.

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                  CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1167 of 1984

Ramayan And Others
                                                           .....Appellant(s)
                                  Versus

State of U.P.
                                                         .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)       : Dharmendra Kumar, Dileep Kumar,
                                 Ram Surat Patel, S.K. Srivastava, Sunil
                                 Vashisth
Counsel for Respondent(s)      : A.G.A.

Court No. - 68
                     HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J.

1. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order
dated 12.04.1984 passed by the learned Special Judge (DAA), Hamirpur
in Sessions Trial No. 59 of 1981 (State vs. Gorey and others). By the
impugned judgment, the learned trial court convicted the appellants under
Sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced each
of them to undergo 4 years’ Rigorous Imprisonment under Section 399
IPC and 3 years’ Rigorous Imprisonment under Section 402 IPC. Both the
sentences shall run concurrently. The appellants were acquitted of charges
under Section 307 IPC, and accused Gorey, Ram Pal, and Ram Kishun
were acquitted of charges under Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act due to
lack of statutory sanction under Section 39 of the Arms Act.

2. As per the office report on 24.07.2025, the learned CJM, Hamirpur,
vide letter dated 24.01.2022, reported the death of appellant Ramayan,
following which notices were served on the remaining three accused-
appellants. Subsequently, on 13.08.2025, it was reported that another
accused-appellant, Gorey, died on 28.03.2025, while bailable warrants
were executed against the remaining two appellants namely, Rampal and
Ram Krishna.

3. In vie of the report of learned C.J.M., Hamirpur, the appeal against the
accused-appellants Ramayan and Gorey is accordingly dismissed as
abated.
                                                       CRLA No. 1167 of 1984
                               2

4. Heard learned counsel for the surviving appellants, Rampal and Ram
Krishna, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

5. The prosecution story in nutshell is that on 23.05.1980 at about 7:00
PM, an information was received through police informer (mukhbir khas)
by the Station Officer of Police Station Korara, District Hamirpur that a
gang of dacoits would assemble near a well under a Banyan tree in the
vicinity of Chaudhuri Ahra to prepare and commit a dacoity at the house
of one Dhani Ram in Village Kutubpur.

6. Acting on the information received from a police informant, Station
Officer S.B. Singh accompanied by ASI Narayan Prasad Dwivedi,
Constables Sukhpal Singh, Veer Singh, Har Saran Singh, and Ram Kumar
Singh, along with other police personnel set out for the scene of the
incident equipped with service weapons, revolvers, a very light pistol, and
ammunition. On the way, independent witnesses Babu Singh, Jagat Singh,
Khusta, and Mahendra Nath were joined in the raiding party. Constables
Muslim Ansari and Sudhir Kumar were deputed to secure the house of
Dhani Ram.

7. The Police personnel reached the spot and strategically divided into
two squads, first squad led by S.O. S.B. Singh along with Constable
Sukhpal Singh, Revati, Juma Singh, and witness Khusta, taking position
towards the north-west of the well. Second squad led by A.S.I. Narayan
Prasad Dwivedi along with Constable Vir Singh, other constables, and
witness Jagat Singh, taking position towards the south of the well.

8. At about 10:00 P.M., the miscreants began assembling under the
Banyan tree, talking and smoking. At about 11:00 P.M., one of the
miscreants remarked to his companions that it was time to commit the
dacoity at Dhani Ram’s house. Thereupon, the police party challenged
them. It was alleged that the dacoits fired upon the police party and in
retaliation the police also opened fire.

9. After a chase, four miscreants, including present accused-appellants
were apprehended on the spot. Upon personal search, a 12-bore gun and a
strip containing cartridges (Exh.1 to 7) were recovered from the
possession of Gorey. A country made pistol, a strap of cartridges, and
four live cartridges (Exh. 8 to 13) were recovered from the possession of
Ram Pal a country-made pistol and two live cartridges (Exh. 14 to 16)
were recovered from the possession of Ram Kishun and a lathi (Exh. 17)
                                                         CRLA No. 1167 of 1984
                                3

was recovered from the possession of Ramayan.

10. A recovery memo (Exh. Ka-1) was prepared on the spot on
24.05.1980 at 2:30 A.M. The arrested accused and seized articles were
brought to P.S. Korara at 3:30 A.M. on 24.05.1980, where an FIR (Exh.
Ka-7) was lodged. The case was entrusted to Investigating Officer
Sukhbir Singh (P.W.3/P.W.5). He inspected the scene of the incident and
prepared a site plan (Exh. Ka-2). Upon completion of the investigation, he
submitted the charge-sheets (Exh. Ka-3, Ka-4, Ka-5) against the accused-
appellants before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate took
cognizance of the matter and, observed that the offences are triable by the
Court of Session and committed the case to the Court of Sessions on
13.04.1981. The Sessions Judge framed charges against all the accused
under Sections 399, 402, and 307 of the IPC, and additionally framed
charges against Gore, Ram Pal, and Ram Kishan under Section 25(1)(a)
of the Arms Act. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

11. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined four witnesses
namely, P.W.1 (Babu Singh): Independent witness of recovery and
assembly, P.W.2 (Mahendra Nath): Independent witness of fact, P.W.3 /
P.W.5 (Sukhbir Singh): Investigating Officer, P.W.4 (Narayan Prasad
Dwivedi, A.S.I.): Police witness of fact and raiding party member.

12. No medical evidence or injury reports were adduced, as no person
sustained any injury during the incident. No empty cartridges or empty
shells were recovered from the spot.

13. In their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellants
denied the charges, claiming false implication due to local enmity, though
no defense witnesses (DWs) were produced.

14. PW-1: Babu Singh, a local resident of Korara village, was examined
as a key independent witness who had joined the police team before the
attack. In his testimony, he testified that he had accompanied the police
team led by the station officer to the scene of the incident, near
Chaudhary's well and the nearby banyan tree. He admitted to taking up
positions with the raiding party to intercept the criminals and testified that
he had directly witnessed the accused gathering. He specifically
corroborated the prosecution's case regarding the conversation he
overheard from the bandits at around 11:00 P.M., in which they discussed
that it was the right time to commit the robbery at the house of Dhani
                                                       CRLA No. 1167 of 1984
                               4

Ram in Qutubpur village. He further testified that the police subsequently
challenged the gang, pursued them, arrested them, and recovered illegal
weapons, ammunition, and a stick at the scene in his presence. As an
attesting witness, he signed the recovery memo, which was marked as
Exh.-Ka1. During cross-examination, the defense attempted to question
his neutrality by claiming that, he had a prior acquaintance with the
accused, as his sister was married in Saurapur village, barely a kilometer
from the accused's village, Ayotara. Babu Singh categorically denied this
connection and also rejected the idea that he was a habitual or stock
witness for the police, or that the recovery memo had been fabricated. The
trial court found his testimony highly credible, free of any exaggerations,
and that he had no personal grudge or motive to falsely implicate the
accused persons.

15. Another resident of village Korara namely, Mahendra Nath (PW-2)
was examined as independent witness. He accompanied the raiding team
and witnessed the capture and seizure. He described the formation of two
separate police parties upon arriving at the scene, taking up tactical
positions near the well, and finally surrounding and arresting the dacoits,
along with the recovery of weapons from their possession. He provided
essential topographical details of the crime scene, stating that the well's
parapet was about 5 to 6 feet high and surrounded by about an acre of
open land. He also stated that bullets were fired during the encounter,
although they were so numerous that they were difficult to count. PW-2 in
his cross-examination has stated that his statement was recorded at the
police station between 10:00 and 12:00 P.M., which the court considered
a minor omission due to the long time before he testified. More
importantly, on page 10 of his cross-examination, he admitted that he had
heard some whispering from under the banyan tree, but he could not
clearly understand the words spoken by the miscreants. He stated that he
mentioned the plot against Dhani Ram's house, because other members of
the party had told him about it. He also did not accuse the accused
persons of any specific shooting, directly. Nevertheless, the court held
that, despite slight discrepancies in the overheard conversation, his
convincing testimony reliably corroborated the key facts of the gathering,
ambush, and arrest, and rejected the defense's claim that, he was an
interested or "pocket" witness.

16. PW-3: Sukhbir Singh, the investigating officer and officer of inquest,
took over the investigation of the case following the lodging of the First
Information Report (Exh. Ka-7) at Police Station Korara. As part of his
                                                        CRLA No. 1167 of 1984
                               5

official investigation, he visited the spot of the ambush and prepared the
site plan, marked as Exh. Ka-2, which illustrated the relative positions of
the two police ambush parties (marked as Points 'A' and 'B') and the
Banyan tree at distances of 22 paces and 20 paces from the well. In his
deposition, he described the physical surroundings of the site, noting that
the height of the well's Jagat was about 3 to 4 feet. Upon concluding the
investigation, he submitted the formal charge sheets against the accused
persons, which were brought onto the record as Exh. Ka-3, Ka-4, and Ka-
5. While his procedural steps regarding the site inspection and charge-
sheeting under the Indian Penal Code were accepted, the trial court
recorded severe strictures against his conduct regarding the Arms Act
charges. The court observed that he exhibited utter callousness and
negligence by failing to obtain the mandatory prior statutory sanction
from the District Magistrate under Section 39 of the Arms Act before
filing the charge sheet under Section 25(1)(a), a fatal omission that
directly necessitated the acquittal of the accused on all charges under
Arms Act, despite the physical recovery of unauthorised weapons.

17. PW-4: Narayan Prasad Dwivedi Assistant, Sub-Inspector Narayan
Prasad Dwivedi was examined as an eye-witness of fact and a leading
member of the police contingent. He provided a comprehensive,
chronological narrative of the entire police action starting from the receipt
of the secret informant’s (mukhbir) tip-off at P.S. Korara regarding the
planned assembly of dacoits. He explained how the raiding contingent
departed for the spot with arms, ammunition, and a Very Light Pistol,
recruited public witnesses on the way, and deployed Constable Muslim
Ansari and Sudhir Kumar to guard the house of Dhani Ram. Upon arrival
at the spot, he was placed in charge of the second squad alongside
Constable Ram Vir Singh and witness Jagat Singh, taking a concealed
position, south of the well adjacent to its Jagat under the cover of a pitch-
dark night. He testified that around 10:00 PM, the dacoits arrived,
gathered on the roots of the Banyan tree, smoked, and gossipped, until
around 11:00 P.M., when one of them declared that the time had come to
strike Dhani Ram's house. He detailed the police challenge, the retaliatory
encounter, the subsequent chase across the open fields, and the specific
personal search and recovery of a 12-bore gun with five cartridges from
Gorey (Exh.1 to 7), a country-made pistol with four live cartridges from
Ram Pal (Exh. 8 to 13), a country-made pistol with two live cartridges
from Ram Kishun (Exh. 14 to 16), and a lathi from Ramayan (Exh. 17).
In evaluating his testimony against defence arguments, that he was an
interested police official, the court ruled that official police acts are
                                                        CRLA No. 1167 of 1984
                               6

presumed to be performed regularly in the discharge of public duty,
unless the defence adduces affirmative evidence of personal hostility or
improper motive, thereby accepting his evidence as fully reliable and
corroborated by the independent witnesses and site circumstances.

18. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that, the prosecution
narrative of an exchange of fire is completely falsified by the absence of
any medical evidence or recovered empty cartridges. The trial court itself
disbelieved the firing narrative and acquitted the appellants under Section
307 IPC.

19. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted, that the recovery
of arms was rendered unprovable under the Arms Act, due to lack of
statutory sanction under Section 39. Once the search/recovery and the
alleged firing are discredited, the essential ingredients of Sections 399 and
402 IPC cannot stand independently. In support of his contention, learned
counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the judgments of
Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Hon’ble Court in the case of
Jasbir Singh vs. State of Haryana : decided on 06.04.2015 in Criminal
Appeal No. 54 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 8663 of 2014);
State of U.P. vs. Punni and Ors : decided on 04.01.2008 in Criminal
Appeal No. 463 of 2001; Rambir Singh and others vs. State of U.P.
passed in Criminal Appeal No. 402 of 1983.

20. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that, there are
material contradictions in the statements of independent witnesses
(P.W.1), (P.W.2) and police personnel (P.W.4) regarding visibility,
distance, ability to overhear conversations in a dark night, and the
recording of statements.

21. On the other hand, the learned A.G.A. supported the conviction,
contending that the testimonies of P.W.1, P.W.2, and P.W.4 sufficiently
prove the assembly and preparation for dacoity.

22. It is apparent form the facts of the case that essential Ingredients for
Sections 399 & 402 IPC is not fulfilled as to sustain a conviction under
Sections 399 and 402 IPC, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable
doubt that the assembly was explicitly for the purpose of committing
dacoity and that active preparation was taking place.

23. According to the prosecution, the raiding team was hidden behind the
                                                        CRLA No. 1167 of 1984
                               7

parapet of a well, situated 20 to 22 paces away, in the darkness of the
night. During cross-examination, P.W.2 specifically admitted that, he
could not comprehend the conversation or words exchanged by the
miscreants and had merely heard whispering; he later claimed that he had
recounted these details, because others had told him so. Under these
circumstances, overhearing a specific plan to commit dacoity at Dhani
Ram's house appears, in itself, to be impossible and implausible.

24. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted, in order to falsity of
Firing & Recovery, the trial court rightly noted, that no empty cartridges
were collected and no injury was sustained by any person. The complete
absence of medical evidence or physical evidence of crossfire casts
serious doubt on the entire encounter story, disproving the prosecution
case.

25. Furthermore, since the charges under Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms
Act failed, the alleged recovery of weapons becomes highly suspicious
and uncorroborated by independent material.

26. Regarding contradictions in the statements of witnesses', P.W.2 gave
conflicting accounts concerning the time and place, where his statement
was recorded. This suggests that the recovery memo and other formalities
were likely prepared at the police station rather than at the scene of the
incident.

27. In view of these glaring infirmities, the prosecution failed to prove the
charges under Sections 399 and 402 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. The
findings of conviction recorded by the trial court are unsustainable in law
and on facts.

28. The Criminal Appeal is allowed.

29. The judgment and order of conviction dated 12.04.1984 passed by the
learned Special Judge (DAA), Hamirpur in Sessions Trial No. 59 of 1981
are hereby set aside.

30. Appellants Ramayan, Gorey, Ram Pal, and Ram Kishun are
acquitted of the charges under Sections 399 and 402 IPC.

31. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled, and sureties
are discharged. They need not surrender unless required in any other case.
                                                                                         CRLA No. 1167 of 1984
                                                                  8

                                    32. Let a copy of this judgment along with the learned Trial Court Record
                                    (LCR) be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith, for
                                    compliance and necessary action.


                                                                                           (Harvir Singh,J.)
                                    October 1, 2026
                                    Faridul




Digitally signed by :-
FAREEDUL HASAN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad