VED PRAKASH SHARMA @ PAHALWAAN vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND and OTHERS

Reserved on: 18.08.2026
Delivered on:02.09.2026
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Criminal Appeal No. 174 of 2013


Ved Prakash Sharma @ Pahalwaan ......Appellant

Versus

State of Uttarakhand and others ..….Respondents



Present:
Ms. Swati Sharma, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Vikas
Amicus Curiae
Anand, .
Mr. J.S. Virk, Additional Advocate General for the State.
Mr. Arvind Vashishtha, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr.
Rachit Manglik, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 to 4.

JUDGMENT

Coram: Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J
Hon’ble Siddhartha Sah, J.

Per: Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.

In the instant appeal, the appellant has challenged the
judgment and order dated 14.01.2013, passed in Sessions Trial No.
th
427 of 2007, State Vs. Sohan Singh and others, by the court of 5
Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar (“the case”). By it, the private
respondent nos. 2 to 4, namely, Sohan, Kuldeep Singh @ Lakhmeer
Singh and Paramjeet Singh (hereinafter referred to as “the accused”)
have been acquitted of the charge under Section 307 read with 34
IPC.
2. The case was based on an FIR lodged by the appellant on
04.07.1999 at 10:40 a.m., at Police Station Jwalapur, District
Haridwar. According to it, the appellant was owner in possession of 30
Bighas land in Plot Nos. 801 to 805, situated at Ranipur Jhal,
Jwalapur, District Haridwar. The appellant had also obtained stay
from the civil court on this land. But, the accused Sohan Singh and

2

others were interfering into the possession of the appellant. On
04.07.1999, at 07:45 a.m., when the appellant was ploughing his field
with a tractor, meanwhile, the accused reached there, armed with
illegal country-made pistols and extended threat to the appellant that
he should not plough the field. The appellant replied that he had got a
stay from the court. FIR records that thereafter, the appellant was
fired by the accused. In his defence, the appellant also opened fire
with his licensed pistol, which hit, the respondent no.3 Kuldeep Singh
@ Lakhmeer Singh. The appellant sustained injuries. He was admitted
in the Government Hospital. His tractor was at the spot. Based on FIR
Ex. A1, a chik FIR Ex. A5 was lodged at 10:40 a.m. at Police Station
Jwalapur, District Haridwar, under Section 307 IPC against the
accused. PW1 appellant Ved Prakash Sharma @ Mahant Vedanand
Saraswati was medically examined at Government Hospital, Haridwar
at 10:30 a.m., on the date of incident by PW5 Dr. S.C. Srivastava.
Medical Examination Report Ex. A-3, X-ray report Ex. A2 and
Supplementary report Ex. A4 are on record. The Investigating Officer
prepared a site plan of the place of incidence, which is Ex. A7. After
investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a Final Report No.
58 of 1999. PW1 appellant Ved Prakash Sharma @ Mahant Vedanand
Saraswati filed an application that the final report may be rejected.
nd
On it, on 10.12.1999, the court of 2 Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate ordered for reinvestigation. But, after reinvestigation also,
final report was submitted, which was rejected by an order dated
nd
11.07.2000 of the court of 2 Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Haridwar and proceedings of the case were initiated.

3. On 23.01.2008, charge under Section 307 read with 34
IPC was framed against the accused, to which, they denied and
claimed trial.

3


4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined, eight
witnesses, namely, PW1 Ved Prakash Sharma @ Mahant Vedanand
Saraswati, PW2 K.P. Singh Sharma, PW3 Jiya Lal, PW4 Dr. R.K.
Pandey, PW5 Dr. S.C. Srivastava, PW6 HC 94 Vijendra Singh, PW7
R.B. Chamola, and PW8 Rajendra Kumar Tyagi. On behalf of the
accused, DW1 retired SI G.S. Rana was examined.

5. After prosecution evidence, the accused were examined
under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the
Code”). According to them, witnesses have given false statements.
According to the accused, on 04.07.1999, at 08:00 in the morning,
the PW1 the appellant Ved Prakash Sharma forcibly wanted to occupy
the land of the accused when he was questioned, he opened fire,
which hit the accused Lakhbeer Singh of which a case was lodged.

6. After hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment and
order, the accused have been acquitted of the charge under Section
307 read with 34 IPC framed against them. Aggrieved, the appellant
preferred the instant appeal.

7. In this appeal, on 14.07.2026, on behalf of the appellant
time was sought, the Court passed a detailed order noting that it
appears that the appellant is delaying the disposal of this appeal.
Thereafter, this Court requested Mr. Vikas Anand, Advocate to assist
the Court on behalf of the appellant. Accordingly, he was appointed
Amicus Curiae. But thereafter, Ms. Swati Sharma, Advocate also
appeared for the appellant to argue the case.

4

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt,
but the court below has committed an error in non-appreciating of
evidence in correct perspective and has acquitted the accused. They
ought to have been convicted. She also raised the following points in
her submissions:-
(i) PW1 Ved Prakash Sharma @ Mahant Vedanand
Saraswati has proved the prosecution case. His
statement is corroborated by the statements of PW2
K.P. Singh Sharma and PW 3 Jiya Lal.
(ii) PW5 Dr. S.C. Srivastava examined PW1 Ved
Prakash Sharma @ Mahant Vedanand Saraswati on
04.07.1999 and has supported the prosecution
case. In fact, X-ray of PW1 Ved Prakash Sharma @
Mahant Vedanand Saraswati was done, which has
been proved by PW 4 Dr. R.K. Pandey.
(iii) The date, time and place of incident is admitted, as
there is a cross case against the appellant PW1 Ved
Prakash Sharma @ Mahant Vedanand Saraswati
also.
(iv) Even if the injuries are simple in nature, it may
attract the provisions of Section 307 IPC.

10. In support of her contention, learned counsel has placed
reliance on the principles of law, as laid by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, in the case of State of M.P. vs. Saleem @ Chamaru and

5

another, (2005) 5 SCC 554 and in para 13 of the judgment observed
as follows:-
“ 13. It is sufficient to justify a conviction under Section 307 if
there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution
thereof. It is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death
should have been inflicted. The section makes a distinction between
the act of the accused and its result, if any. The court has to see
whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention
or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the section.
Therefore, an accused charged under Section 307 IPC cannot be
acquitted merely because the injuries inflicted on the victim were in
the nature of a simple hurt.

11. On the other hand, learned Senior counsel for the State
submits that the court below has rightly acquitted the accused.
Prosecution in that case has not been able to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt. He also raised the following points in his
submissions:-
(i) The injuries on PW1 Ved Prakash Sharma @
Mahant Vedanand Saraswati are self inflicted. PW5
Dr. S.C.Srivastava has stated so.
(ii) The FIR is much delayed.
(iii) If the injuries were sustained at 07:45 in the
morning on 04.07.1999, why for the first time,
medical was done at 10:30 a.m.? Why was so
delay?
(iv) PW1 Ved Prakash Sharma @ Mahant Vedanand
Saraswati did not prove ownership or possession of
the land or any civil dispute. There is no motive.
(v) The statement of PW1 Ved Prakash Sharma @
Mahant Vedanand Saraswati is not reliable, in view
of the injuries sustained by him. The injury could
not have been sustained in the palm, in the

6

manner, it is suggested by PW1 Ved Prakash
Sharma @ Mahant Vedanand Saraswati.
12. Before arguments are appreciated, it would be apt to
examine as to what the witnesses have stated.

13. PW1 Ved Prakash Sharma @ Mahant Vedanand
Saraswati is an informant, who is appellant also. According to him, he
is owner in possession of 150 Bighas land in Khasra Nos. 801, 802,
803 804, 805, 821, 822, 824 & 825 in Ranipur Jhal. He was in the
litigation with accused Sohan Singh, with regard to 70 Bighas land.
The land was purchased by this witness, but mutation could not be
done. Thereafter, the Sub Divisional Magistrate ordered for recording
half of the land in favour of the accused Sohan Singh and half of the
land vested in the State of Uttar Pradesh. This order was challenged
in Commissioner’s court, where status quo order was passed. He
submits that, in fact, this witness has got a stay order, restraining the
accused Sohan Singh from interfering into the possession of this
witness.

14. PW1 Ved Prakash Sharma @ Mahant Vedanand
Saraswati has stated that on 04.07.1999 at 7:30 in the morning, he
was ploughing his field with the tractor, when the accused reached
there, armed with illegal firearms. All the three accused opened fire
and the fire shot made by the accused Lakhveer Singh hit him on his
hand. Thereafter, he fired with his licensed pistol while running from
the place of incidence. According to him, after the incident, PW2 K.P.
Singh Sharma and PW3 Jiya Lal reached at the spot. They took this
witness to police station and the police personnel took him to
hospital, where his treatment was done. He gave a report to the police.
He proved his report Ex. A1.

7


15. PW2 K.P. Singh Sharma and PW3 Jiya Lal have also
stated about the incident that they were also near the place of
incidence, when the incident took place.

16. PW4 Dr. R.K. Pandey has proved the X-ray plate Ex.1 and
A1X-ray report Ex. A2. This X-ray report does not, in any manner,
supports the prosecution case, because according to it, nothing
abnormal detected on the X-ray of the right hand of the appellant.

17. PW5 Dr. S.C. Srivastava examined the PW1 Ved Prakash
Sharma @ Mahant Vedanand Saraswati on 04.07.1999 and found the
following injuries on his persons:-
“(i) Firearm wound entry 1.3cm x 1 cm x dorsal of right hand 5
cm above the bone of right index finger. Bleeding present
communicating with injury no.2
(ii) Fire wound of exit 3.8 x 1.5 cm on right hand palm close to
base of right thumb bleeding present communicating with
injury no.1.”

He proved the report, Ex. A3. He also proved the
supplementary report with regard to X-ray, Ex.A-4, which also reveals
that nothing abnormal detected.

18. PW6 HC 94 Vijendra Singh recorded chik FIR and made
its entry in the General Diary. He proved these documents.

19. PW7 R.B. Chamola is the Investigating Officer, who
prepared the site plan, Ex. A7.

8

20. PW8 Rajendra Kumar Tyagi conducted the investigation.
According to him, no offence was made out and he filed the final
report in the matter.
21. DW1 SI G.S. Rana had initially investigated the matter.
According to him, during his investigation, he found that the
allegations were not substantiated and witnesses have not stated that
the accused did fire at PW1 Ved Prakash Sharma @ Mahant
Vedanand Saraswati, who is the appellant.

22. It is a golden rule of criminal jurisprudence that the
prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. According
to the prosecution, on the date of incident, when PW1 Ved Prakash
Sharma @ Mahant Vedanand Saraswati, the appellant was ploughing
his field, the accused opened fire at him, which hit him. PW1 Ved
Prakash Sharma @ Mahant Vedanand Saraswati has reiterated the
version of the FIR. According to him, when he was fired at, in his
th
defence, while running, he opened fire. In page 2, 5 line of his
statement, PW1 Ved Prakash Sharma @ Mahant Vedanand Saraswati,
the appellant has stated that after the incident, PW2 K.P. Singh
Sharma and PW3 Jiya Lal also reached there, which means PW2 K.P.
Singh Sharma and PW3 Jiya Lal were not the eyewitnesses. PW2 K.P.
Singh Sharma, in page 4, middle of his statement has stated that
when he heard the sound of two fire shots, he ran away. Similarly,
PW3 Jiya Lal, in page 3, bottom paragraph has stated that he and
PW2 K.P. Singh had heard the fire shot from their field. PW7 R.B.
Chamola is the Investigating Officer. He has proved the site plan Ex.
A7. It does not show the position, from where PW2 K.P. Singh Sharma
and PW3 Jiya Lal had witnessed the incident. In fact, according to the
statements of PW2 K.P. Singh Sharma and PW3 Jiya Lal given in their
cross examination, as referred to hereinabove, they heard the sound

9

of gunshot from their field, which means, they did not witness the
incident. PW1 Ved Prakash Sharma @ Mahant Vedanand Saraswati
has further stated that after the incident, PW2 K.P. Singh Sharma
and PW3 Jiya Lal took him to the police station and from there, he
was taken to hospital. But, both PW2 K.P. Singh Sharma and PW3
Jiya Lal have not supported the version of PW1 Ved Prakash Sharma
@ Mahant Vedanand Saraswati on this aspect (statement of PW2 K.P.
Singh Sharma, page 4 middle lines and PW3 Jiya Lal Page 4 opening
lines).

23. According to PW1 Ved Prakash Sharma @ Mahant
Vedanand Saraswati, when he was fired at, PW2 K.P. Singh Sharma
and PW3 Jiya Lal reached at the spot and they took him to the police
station, from where PW1 Ved Prakash Sharma @ Mahant Vedanand
Saraswati was taken to hospital. But, as stated, PW2 K.P. Singh
Sharma and PW3 Jiya Lal have denied of having taken PW1 Ved
Prakash Sharma @ Mahant Vedanand Saraswati to police station or
hospital. In fact, as stated, PW2 K.P. Singh Sharma has categorically
stated that he did not see the accused fired at PW1 Ved Prakash
Sharma @ Mahant Vedanand Saraswati. The statement of PW1 Ved
Prakash Sharma @ Mahant Vedanand Saraswati is not corroborated
on material particulars. Who took PW1 Ved Prakash Sharma @
Mahant Vedanand Saraswati to the hospital or the police station? It is
much in doubt. The medical injury report, Ex. A3 records that PW1
Ved Prakash Sharma @ Mahant Vedanand Saraswati himself has
visited the hospital. He was neither accompanied by the police nor by
PW2 K.P. Singh Sharma or PW3 Jiya Lal. In fact, PW6 Vijendra Singh
has stated that on the date of incident, PW1 Ved Prakash Sharma @
Mahant Vedanand Saraswati did not reach at the police station. The
statement of PW1 Ved Prakash Sharma @ Mahant Vedanand

10

Saraswati is not getting corroboration on material aspects. It grossly
doubts the prosecution case.

24. According to PW1 Ved Prakash Sharma @ Mahant
Vedanand Saraswati, when he was fired by the accused, he, while
running from the place of incident, opened fire (statement of PW1 Ved
rd
Prakash Sharma @ Mahant Vedanand Saraswati, page 2 3 line). But,
PW3 Jiya Lal contradicts it. He tells that PW1 Ved Prakash Sharma @
Mahant Vedanand Saraswati did open fire from the tractor itself
th
(statement of PW3 Jiya Lal, page 4, 8 line from top). There are
material contradictions.

25. If the incident took place at 7:45 a.m., as stated by PW1
Ved Prakash Sharma @ Mahant Vedanand Saraswati and he got a
firearm injury on his hand, why immediately, he did not go to the
hospital? Why he did not lodge the FIR immediately? FIR is much
delayed. It was lodged at 10:40 a.m. Medical was done for the first
time at 10:30 a.m. This alone doubts the prosecution case. It doubts
the credibility of the statement of PW1 Ved Prakash Sharma @
Mahant Vedanand Saraswati. There is another reason, if fire has
crossed the palm of PW1 Ved Prakash Sharma @ Mahant Vedanand
Saraswati, there would have been some injuries on the internal
organs like bones etc. According to PW5 Dr. S.C. Srivastava, the X-ray
was normal. Has it been self inflicted injury?

26. The enmity between the parties is admitted. Admittedly,
much prior to the lodging of the FIR by PW1 Ved Prakash Sharma @
Mahant Vedanand Saraswati, the accused Sohan Singh lodged a
report against PW1 Ved Prakash Sharma @ Mahant Vedanand

11

Saraswati. It is admitted that, in fact, the appellant has been
convicted, based on the FIR lodged by the accused Sohan Singh.

27. PW5 Dr. S.C. Srivastava, in the bottom line of his cross
examination, has stated that he cannot say that the injuries were self
inflicted or caused by some other person. It also doubts the credibility
and veracity of the statement of PW1 Ved Prakash Sharma @ Mahant
Vedanand Saraswati.

28. The injury report may be considered from another aspect.
According to it, entry wound was on the dorsal of the right hand and
there was an exit wound. According to PW1 Ved Prakash Sharma @
Mahant Vedanand Saraswati, when he was fired, he was facing the
accused (statement of PW1 Ved Prakash Sharma @ Mahant Vedanand
th
Saraswati, page 11, 9 line). The site plan Ex. A7 is different. It does
not show the position accordingly. But, if for the sake of argument,
the statement of PW1 Ved Prakash Sharma @ Mahant Vedanand
Saraswati is taken for consideration that he was on the tractor and
the accused was in front of him, then how could a bullet enter on the
dorsal of his right hand and exit from the palm. It also doubts the
credibility of the statement of PW1 Ved Prakash Sharma @ Mahant
Vedanand Saraswati. The injury report, as stated by PW5 Dr. S.C.
Srivastava and as recorded in the impugned judgment, it appears to
be self inflicted injury, so as to get defence of FIR No. 283 of 1999 of
Police Station Jwalapur, District Haridwar lodged by the accused
Sohan Singh against the appellant and others (this fact is admitted
that such FIR was lodged).

12

29. According to PW1 Ved Prakash Sharma @ Mahant
Vedanand Saraswati, after the incident, he became unconscious and
he was taken to hospital (Page 12, mid to bottom lines). But,
according to PW2 K.P. Singh Sharma, PW1 Ved Prakash Sharma @
Mahant Vedanand Saraswati was not unconscious (statement of PW2
th
K.P. Singh, page 5, 5 line from the top). As stated, on the one hand,
according to PW1 Ved Prakash Sharma @ Mahant Vedanand
Saraswati, he was taken to hospital by PW2 K. P. Singh Sharma and
PW3 Jiya Lal, but both these witnesses have denied of having
accompanied PW1 Ved Prakash Sharma @ Mahant Vedanand
Saraswati to police station or hospital, on the date of incident. In fact,
according to PW6 Vijendra Singh, on the date of incident, PW1 Ved
Prakash Sharma @ Mahant Vedanand Saraswati did not ever visit the
police station.

30. There is only one witness of the incident, who is PW1 Ved
Prakash Sharma @ Mahant Vedanand Saraswati. His statement on
material particulars is in contradiction to the statements of PW2 K. P.
Singh Sharma and PW3 Jiya Lal. The statement of PW1 Ved Prakash
Sharma @ Mahant Vedanand Saraswati is not reliable evidence. The
FIR is much delayed. The medical examination is much delayed. It is
also doubtful that PW1 Ved Prakash Sharma @ Mahant Vedanand
Saraswati did sustain injury, in the manner, he has stated and a
genuine doubt has been raised in the impugned judgment and order
that the injuries were self inflicted.

31. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that
learned court below has rightly acquitted the accused. There is no
reason to make any interference in the impugned judgment and order.
Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

13


32. The appeal is dismissed.

33. Let a copy of this judgment along with Lower Court
Record be forwarded to the court concerned for compliance.


(Siddhartha Sah J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.)
02.09.2026


Jitendra