BHOLAversusSTATE OF U.P.

                                                                   AFR
                                        Judgment Reserved On: 09.02.2026
                                      Judgment Pronounced On: 06.05.2026
                                        Judgment Uploaded On: 06.05.2026




         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1373 of 1986

Bhola
                                                         …..Appellant(s)
                                Versus
State of U.P.
                                                       …..Respondent(s)


Counsel for Appellant(s)          : I.m. Khan, Jitendra Singh, Narendra
                                    Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s)         : A.G.A.


Court No. - 71

             HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.

1.      The present criminal appeal is preferred under Section 374 CrPC
by the sole accused appellant- Bhola on being aggrieved by judgment of
conviction and sentence dated 21.5.1986 in State Vs. Bhola and another
(S.T. No.187 of 1985) wherein the accused appellant was convicted for
the offence under Section 394 IPC and punished with rigorous
imprisonment of five years and fine of Rs.500/- and in default of the
payment of fine, six months rigorous imprisonment.

2.      Heard Sri Narendra Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and
Sri Chandra Badan, learned A.G.A. for the State.

3.      The prosecution case disclosed in the FIR dated 30.1.1985 lodged
at 11:30 AM at P.S. Kishunpur, District- Fatehpur is such that Sushila
Devi (P.W.-6) along with Param Sundari who were posted at Primary
Health Centre, Vijaipur were going to village Sarauli on 29.1.1985.
When they reached the canal culvert at about 08:00 PM two persons
came there pointed country made pistol and started robbing them of their
                                     2
                                                    CRLA No. - 1373 of 1986

jewellery. They have started crying for help, hearing them, Chheddu son
of Pahalwan and Babu Singh son of Ram Raj of village Sarauli came
there. Seeing them, the miscreants have fired at them with country made
pistol, due to the fire Chheddu suffered fire arm injuries on his right leg
and Babu Singh suffered fire arm injuries on his right wrist. These two
persons then apprehended one of the miscreants but the second
miscreant has sprinted away along with the booty. The apprehended
accused has disclosed his name as Bhola son of Badri Kori resident of
village Takkipur,   P.S.- Khakhereru, District- Fatehpur. He has also
disclosed the name of second miscreant as Sheo Kulli @ Ranvir Singh
son of Sughar Singh resident of village Takkipur, P.S.- Khakhereru. This
accused appellant was taken to the police station. The items, which were
robbed by the accused appellants, i.e. 1. chain with pendant, 2. silver
ring, 3. nose pin, 4. brass earring, 5. brass ring and Rs.10/-. As it was
already dark and night hour, the report could not be lodged on the same
day.

4.     The case was registered at Case Crime No.21 of 1985 for offences
under Sections 394, 307 IPC against two named accused, which was
entered in GD No.13. After registration of the FIR, the injured were
taken to medical officer Vijaipur where the injuries of Chheddu and
Babu Singh were examined at 4:15 PM and 4:30 PM, respectively, on
30.1.1985. The investigation has been carried out by S.I. Sukhdeo
Pandey (P.W.3) who has investigated the place of occurrence, recorded
the statement of witnesses and submitted charge sheet against two
accused, namely, Bhola Kori and Sheo Kulli @ Ranvir Singh.

5.     The charge against both the accused have been framed for offence
under Section 394 read with 397 IPC on 2.1.1986. The prosecution has
produced three witnesses of fact P.W.1- Babu Singh, P.W.-2, Chheddu,
P.W.6 Smt. Sushila Devi and three formal witnesses, namely, S.I.
Sukhdeo P.W.-3, the Investigating Officer, Dr. S.N. Awasthi P.W.-4, the
doctor who has examined the injured, Constable Mukhtar Ahmad P.W.-5
who entered the chick FIR and GD.
                                    3
                                                    CRLA No. - 1373 of 1986

6.    The appellant in his statement under Section 313 CrPC has stated
that he has been falsely implicated in the case by Babu Singh. The
reason for false implication is that Babu Singh has asked the accused
applicant for doing some work, which he has refused. He has also
refused Babu Singh for getting sterilization of his wife. Further submits
that Sushila Devi, the informant is the daughter of Babu Singh’s aunt
(Bua) who is working at the Primary Health Centre and called his wife
for sterilization process. Further stated that the accused appellant was
taken by Chheddu and Babu Singh from his house to hand him over to
the police.

7.    The trial court while recording the conviction of accused appellant
on the basis of statement of the injured and informant observed that there
is nothing to discard the testimonies of witnesses, whose testimonies are
corroborated to each other and are reliable. Further observed that there is
no evidence against co-accused Sheo Kulli @ Ranvir Singh, hence,
acquitted him of the offence.

8.    Learned counsel for the accused appellant has submitted that the
witnesses are not trustworthy, if their deposition is taken into
consideration in the light of their cross examinations. There is no role
attributed on the accused appellant of firing at the injured. The accused
appellant was apprehended from his house and given into the custody of
police. The witnesses are not reliable. The FIR is delayed, as during the
whole night the accused appellant was kept in custody of the informant.
There is consistency in the statement of the witnesses about the role of
the accused appellant. The site plan of the case does not show the place
from where the injured witnesses have heard the shrieks of the
informant. The independent witnesses who were there along with the
informant has not been produced. The co-accused on whom the role of
shooting is attributed, has been acquitted. The accused appellant has not
committed any offence, hence, he may be acquitted.

9.    Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State has submitted that it is the
matter of robbery with two ladies who were going to village. The booty
                                     4
                                                    CRLA No. - 1373 of 1986

robbed from the informant was taken away by the co-accused. The FIR
is prompt. The investigation has been carried out by the Investigating
Officer in the right direction and the accused appellant has been
apprehended by the injured witnesses at the place of incident. The
witnesses have rightly identified the accused appellant and the trial court
has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and convicted the accused
appellant. Hence, submits that the appeal is devoid of merit and is liable
to be dismissed.

10.   This Court has taken into consideration the rival submissions
made by the parties and perused the record.

11.   This Court has taken into consideration the rival submissions
made by the parties and perused the record.11. The point of
consideration in the present appeal is:-

(a) Whether the accused appellant has committed robbery with the
informant and voluntarily caused hurt to Chheddu and Babu Singh?

(b) Whether the trial court has rightly appreciated the oral and
documentary evidence and reached to the right conclusion in convicting
the accused appellant for the offence of robbery?

12.   Before considering the ocular and documentary evidences
adduced in the case, it would be necessary to mention that the alleged
robbery has been committed by two accused. The accused appellant
was apprehended by injured at the place of incident whereas another
accused managed to escape along with the booty. Another accused was
arrested by the police. The charge sheet has been submitted against them
on the basis of statements of the witnesses, but during the deposition it is
found that co-accused Sheo Kulli @ Ranvir Singh was not involved in
the crime and he has been acquitted of the charge. The remnant facts
shows that it is the second miscreant has opened fire at the witnesses
Chheddu and Babu Singh. It is the he, who has robbed the informant and
left with the booty and the accused appellant Bhola was arrested on the
spot, who was neither attributed the role of opening fire nor robbing the
informant, but held guilty because he was allegedly apprehended at the
                                     5
                                                    CRLA No. - 1373 of 1986

place of incident. This fact is to be kept in mind while going through the
testimonies of the eye witnesses.

13.   P.W.-6 Smt. Sushila Devi was the first person to encounter the
robbery. Hence, her deposition is required to be taken into consideration
first. In her statement she has stated that she is on the post of ANM at
Primary Health Centre, Vijaipur. She has stated that she was going to
village Sarauli along with Param Sundari, when she has been robbed on
pistol point. It is not the case of prosecution that Param Sundari has also
been robbed. The prosecution has not produced her as a witness. She
further stated that the miscreant has fired single shot. Two witnesses
suffered injuries. P.W.-1 Babu Singh suffered injuries on his right hand.
P.W.2 Chheddu suffered injury on his right leg. P.W.-3, the Investigating
Officer has not shown in the site plan where these two witnesses were
standing at the time of opening of fire. It is also not on record that how
these two injured witnesses were placed at the time when injury was
received to them. It is a bit doubtful as to how the two persons who were
coming to rescue the informant suffered gunshot injuries on right side of
their body, more particularly Chheddu suffered on his right leg middle
surface, 21 cm     below right knee joint, kept under observation and
advised X-ray for foreign body. No blackening, no tattooing and no
wound of exit and Babu Singh suffered gunshot injuries on his right
wrist posterior surface.

14.   P.W.-6 Smt. Sushila Devi has further stated that there was no
recovery from the accused appellant- Bhola. He was not even having
country made pistol or the booty.

15.   During her cross examination, P.W.-6 Smt Sushila Devi has stated
that there was sterilization camp at Primary Health Centre, Vijaipur. She
took two cases but none has turned up, whereas, Param Sundari has had
two cases of sterilization matured. She has further stated that all the
persons are of village Sarauli. She has further stated that when she was
coming along with Param Sundari, they were also accompanied with two
ladies who had under gone sterilization and was also accompanied with
                                       6
                                                       CRLA No. - 1373 of 1986

the mother of one lady. It shows that there were five ladies present at the
time of robbery. The four ladies present at the incident are star witnesses
but they have not been produced by the prosecution.

16.   The trial court while recording the evidence of P.W.-6 Smt.
Sushila Devi has specifically asked certain questions about the writing of
written information. This witness has replied that first information report
was written at village Sarauli which was a rough. Subsequently, the
Gram Pradhan has asked her to prepare a fresh written information. The
one she has proved before the Court as Ext.Ka.6 is the subsequent
written information. She has further stated that 15-20 persons along with
Pradhan of the village has accompanied them to the police station for
lodging the FIR.

17.   The accused appellant was apprehended by two injured persons in
the night of 29.1.1985 at canal culvert at about 8:00 PM. The accused
appellant was tied by the ‘Angocha’ (scarf) and kept at the house of
Pradhan. According to this witness he was also beaten up. On
questioning as to why the FIR was not lodged on the same day and the
accused appellant, who was apprehended, was not handed over to the
police that day. The reply of the three witnesses of fact is that it was
dark and night, hence, they were scared of going to police station. For
more than 12 hours, the accused appellant was under the custody of the
informant, the injured witnesses and Pradhan.

18.   The statement of P.W.-6 Smt. Sushila Devi does not inspire
confidence to be truthful, because out of five ladies she was the only
person who has been robbed. The sterilization programme was
continuing. It is the statement of the accused recorded under Section 313
CrPC that he was asked by Babu Singh for sending his wife for
sterilization, which she has refused and this witness was a bit annoyed
by the failure of her in calling ladies for sterilization.

19.   The other two witnesses of fact namely Babu Singh P.W.-1 and
Chheddu P.W.2 have stated that they were in their field at the time when
they have heard the shrieks of ladies. The field of Chheddu and Babu
                                      7
                                                     CRLA No. - 1373 of 1986

Singh is situated at the distance of 2-3 fields in between. It is stated that
their field lies at the north of culvert. The Investigating Officer has not
shown the place where the field of these witnesses is situated. The
Investigating Officer has also not shown the place from where the
accused appellant has opened fire on these witnesses.

20.   The injury sustained by Chheddu and Babu Singh reveals that
Chheddu suffered gunshot wound of entry ¼ cm x ¼ cm x muscle deep
on the right leg, medial surface, 21 cm below the right knee joint, kept
under observation and advised X-ray for foreign body. No blackening,
no tattooing and no wound of exit. The injuries sustained by Babu Singh
is one gunshot wound of entry ¼ cm x ¼ cm muscle deep on the right
wrist post surface, kept under observation and advised X-ray. No
blackening, no tattooing and no wound of exit. It was the observation of
Dr. S.N. Awasthi P.W.-4 that these injuries is about one day old. There is
no X-ray carried out to establish whether there is any foreign body
present or not.

21.   P.W.-1 Babu Singh and P.W.-2 Chheddu both have stated that they
had seen Sheo Kulli in the village and they also knew Bhola.

22.   The injuries suffered by the injured witnesses stated to be suffered
by gunshot fire by the co-accused. The co-accused is not convicted in the
present case. The injuries has not been attributed on the accused
appellant. The presence of witnesses itself doubted in view of the single
gunshot fired by the co-accused. The FIR is delayed. The reason for the
delay is not plausible. The accused appellant when apprehended was
neither having the booty nor he was having any weapon for committing
the robbery, who is of the same village. It is also a bit doubtful that an
injured person could have apprehended the accused when one of the
accused managed to escape, on whom the role of collecting the booty
and firing the shot is attributed.

23.   Hence, the ocular and documentary evidences does not show the
involvement of accused appellant in the offence of robbery in view of
the evidences adduced by the prosecution.
                                                                     8
                                                                                   CRLA No. - 1373 of 1986

                            24.         In the case of Jitendra Kumar Mishra alias Jittu Vs. State of
                            Madhya Pradesh reported in (2024) 2 SCC 666, Hon’ble the Supreme
                            Court held that an appellate court should be slow in interfering with
                            conviction recorded by courts below but where evidence on record
                            indicates that prosecution has failed to prove guilt of accused beyond
                            reasonable doubt and that a plausible view, different from one expressed
                            by trial court, can be taken. The appellate court should not shy away in
                            giving benefit of doubt to the accused.

                            25.         Thus, the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 21.5.1986
                            passed by IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur in Session Trial No.
                            187 of 1985 (State Vs. Bhola and another), under Section 394 IPC, is
                            hereby set aside.

                            26.         The sole appellant- Bhola is acquitted for offence under Section
                            394 IPC.

                            27.         Accordingly, the criminal appeal is allowed.

                            28.         The accused appellant is on bail. His sureties and executed bail
                            bonds stands discharged.

                            29. The record be remitted, forthwith, as per law.



                                                                                       (Avnish Saxena,J.)

                            May 06, 2026
                            Krishna*




Digitally signed by :-
KRISHNA KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad