Allahabad High Court

RAM SWAROOPversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 29 March 2026
Bench: VANI RANJAN AGRAWAL

Holding

The conviction of the appellant under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code is upheld.

Summary

The appellant Ram Swaroop was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly, for assault with a dangerous weapon under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code after allegedly firing at the leg of the complainant's son during a Diwali incident in 2001. The prosecution relied on ocular testimony of the injured victim, corroborated by medical evidence of entry and exit wounds consistent with a firearm injury, while the defence argued the injuries were caused by firecrackers and highlighted investigative lapses such as the absence of recovered cartridges or forensic examination of the weapon. The trial court dismissed the defence theory and upheld the conviction, noting that the injury, though not fatal, was caused by a dangerous weapon. On appeal, the High Court affirmed that reliable ocular and medical evidence outweighs minor investigative deficiencies and upheld the conviction under Section 324 IPC. However, the Court modified the sentence, crediting the time already served and imposing a fine of Rs. 4,000, with a default imprisonment provision, thereby partially allowing the appeal.

Issues considered

The adequacy of ocular testimony combined with medical evidence to prove a firearm injury in the absence of recovered weapon or forensic analysis.
Whether the lack of forensic recovery of cartridges or weapon examination warrants setting aside the conviction under Section 324 IPC.
Whether the injury, not being to a vital part, precludes conviction under Section 307 IPC but supports conviction under Section 324 IPC.
The propriety of modifying the sentence given the duration of proceedings and absence of prior criminal record.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 307, 324

Subjects

assault with dangerous weapon
Section 324 IPC
ocular testimony
forensic evidence
sentence modification
criminal procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4576 of 2005

Ram Swaroop
.....Appellant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Appellant(s) : Kuldeep Johri
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Anand Mohan Pandey, Govt. Advocate,
Ram Raj Mishra, Virendra Kumar
Singh

Court No. - 93
HON'BLE MRS. VANI RANJAN AGRAWAL, J.

1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated
05.10.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, District- Bareilly in
Session Trial No.763 of 2003, arising out of Crime No.157 of 2001,
convicting the appellant under Section 324 of I.P.C, Police Station-
Qularia, District- Bareilly.
2. None appeared on behalf of appellant. However, Sri Ram Raj Mishra,
learned counsel for the opposite party is present.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 14.11.2001, at about 5.30 p.m.,
on the occasion of Diwali, the complainant’s son Tej Bahadur, was
lighting lamps outside his home, while the complainant was sitting
nearby. The accused persons namely, Ram Swaroop, Lalu, Balak Ram
and Ram Chandra, arrived at the gate of complainant. Ram Swaroop was
armed with a fire-arm. The accused persons surrounded the complainant’s
son and assaulted him, Ram Swaroop fired at his leg with intention to
cause death, causing grievous injuries.
4. The FIR was lodged on the following day, 15.11.2001 and the
investigation was started. The injuries were medically examined and an
X-ray was also conducted, followed by submission of a supplementary
report. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed.
5. The prosecution has examined as many as 5 witnesses. P.W.-1
complainant Ram Chandra, P.W.-2 injured Tej Bahadur, P.W.-3 eye-
witness Dhaniram, P.W.-4 Dr. Vinay Kumar Jaiswal and P.W.-5 Sub-
Inspector Suraj Singh Chauhan.
CRLA No. 4576 of 2005
2

6. P.W-1 informant Ram Chandra, supported the prosecution case and
attributed the motive to prior enmity. PW.-2 injured witnesses Tej
Bahadur and P.W.-3 Dhaniram also supported the occurrence and
specifically stated that the accused Ram Swaroop fired at the victim’s leg.
P.W.-4 Dr. Vinay Kumar Jaiswal proved the medical report regarding
entry and exit wound, consistent with a fire-arm injury below the knee.
No fracture was detected in X-ray examination.
7. The defence denied the occurrence and suggested that the injuries
might have been caused by the fire crackers. However, the trial court
rejected this contention, observing that the nature of injury entry and exit
wound could not have been caused by fire crackers like Rocket or
Charkhi.
8. The trial court, however, held that since the injury was not on the vital
part of the body and there is no opinion of the doctor that the injuries are
dangerous to life for establishing offence under Section 307 I.P.C. The
offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is not made out. Nevertheless,
considering that the injury was caused by a dangerous weapon. The
accused were convicted for offence under Section 324 I.P.C.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant Ram Swaroop, assailed the
conviction on technical grounds, that there is no pallets or cartridges were
recovered from the spot, the alleged weapon was not sent for forensic
examination and clothes of the injured were not taken into possession.
10. Learned A.G.A. for the State supported the judgment of conviction
and sentenced.
11. Having heard, learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
This court finds that ocular testimony of the injured witness duly
corroborated by medical evidence clearly establishes the prosecution case.
12. It is well settled that ocular evidence has greater evidentiary value and
minor lapses in investigation and absence of certain recoveries do not
necessarily demolish the prosecution case. When the ocular evidence is
otherwise found trustworthy, it cannot be discarded nearly on account of
minor inconsistencies or technical lapses in investigation. It is a settled
principle of law that defective investigation right itself is not a ground for
acquittal. When there is otherwise reliable evidence is available on record.
13. In the present case, the presence of entry and exit wound as proved by
the doctor P.W. – 4 Dr. Vinay Kumar Jaiswal clearly establishes that the
CRLA No. 4576 of 2005
3

injury was caused by fire-arm. The defence theory of injury caused by fire
crackers has rightly been rejected by the trial court.
14. This Court finds no illegality or perversity in findings recorded by the
trial court in holding that the appellant guilty under Section 324 I.P.C.
The conviction recorded by the trial court deserves to be upheld.
15. However, considering the incident is of the year 2001 the appellant
has faced the ordeal of criminal proceedings for a long period and there is
nothing on record to indicate any criminal antecedents. No fruitful
purpose would be served on sending the appellant again in jail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court finds it
proper to modify the sentence.
16. A perusal of the record transpires that the appellant was in jail since
05.10.2005 to 24.10.2005 i.e. about 20 days after passing of impugned
judgment.
17. The conviction of the appellant under Section 324 I.P.C. is confirmed.
The sentence awarded by the trial court is modified to the extent that the
appellant is sentenced for imprisonment for the period already undergone.
In addition, the appellant shall pay a fine of Rs. 4000/- to be deposited
before the trial court within a period of two months from the date of
receiving the certified copy of this judgment. In default of payment of
fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
18. The appeal is partly allowed to the extent of modification of sentence.
19. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be
transmitted to the court concerned for compliance.

(Mrs. Vani Ranjan Agrawal,J.)
March 30, 2026
P. Pandey

Digitally signed by :-
PUSHPENDRA PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…