The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has dismissed a criminal appeal filed by Mahesh alias Munna Yadav, affirming his conviction and life sentence for the 2014 double murder of his brother and another individual. The Court ruled that minor variations in firearm entry wounds do not automatically imply the use of multiple weapons and emphasized that the testimony of hostile witnesses can still be relied upon to the extent it supports the prosecution’s case.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Chandra Dhari Singh and Justice Devendra Singh-I, delivered the judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 3410 of 2016. The appellant challenged the June 27, 2016, order of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Varanasi, which sentenced him to life imprisonment under Section 302 of the IPC and additional terms under Sections 27 and 30 of the Arms Act.
Background of the Incident
According to the prosecution, the incident occurred on March 16, 2014, at approximately 10:30 PM in Mahmurganj, Varanasi. A dispute over land led the appellant, Mahesh alias Munna Yadav, and others to the house of his brother, Bhola Yadav. Following an exhortation by co-accused Hari Shankar and Sohan Yadav, the appellant allegedly resorted to indiscriminate firing. Both Bhola Yadav and a bystander, Vinod Yadav, sustained fatal firearm injuries and later succumbed during treatment.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant’s Submissions: Senior Advocate Mr. V.P. Srivastava, appearing for the appellant, argued that the medical evidence contradicted the ocular testimony. He pointed out that the entry wound on Bhola Yadav was $1\text{ cm} \times 1\text{ cm}$, while Vinod Yadav’s was $0.5\text{ cm} \times 0.5\text{ cm}$, suggesting the use of two different weapons—a claim inconsistent with the prosecution’s single-shooter theory. Furthermore, the defense highlighted that key witnesses (PW-2 and PW-3) were declared hostile and that the FIR scribe (PW-6) claimed the report was written under police pressure.
Respondent’s Submissions: The Additional Government Advocate (A.G.A.), Mr. S.N. Tiwari, countered that the prompt lodging of the FIR (within roughly two hours) ruled out fabrication. The State relied heavily on the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report, which matched the empty cartridges found at the scene to the 7.65 mm pistol recovered from the appellant during his arrest while attempting to flee.
Court’s Analysis
The Court addressed several critical legal points:
1. On Hostile Witnesses: The Bench noted that while the wife and daughter of the deceased (PW-2 and PW-3) turned hostile regarding the shooter’s identity, they admitted the occurrence of the incident and the cause of death. Citing Vadivellu Thevar vs. State of Madras and Khujji alias Surendra Tiwari vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Court observed:
“It is well settled that the evidence of a hostile witness cannot be discarded as a whole, and relevant parts thereof which are admissible in law, can be used by the prosecution or the defence.”
2. On Discrepancies in Entry Wounds: The Court dismissed the defense’s argument that different wound sizes necessitated different weapons. Referring to forensic principles and Modi’s Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence, the Court explained that the size and appearance of an entry wound depend on factors like distance, angle, velocity, and skin elasticity.
“The mere existence of entry wounds of different sizes cannot, by itself, lead to the inference that two different firearms were used in the commission of the offence…”
3. On Forensic Evidence and Conduct: The Court found that the FSL report directly linked the weapon recovered from the appellant to the crime scene. It also noted that the appellant’s attempt to flee at the time of arrest was a relevant fact under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Decision
The Court concluded that the prosecution successfully established a chain of evidence, including the recovery of the weapon, forensic linkage, prompt FIR, and a clear motive involving a land dispute.
Finding no “illegality, perversity or material irregularity” in the trial court’s judgment, the High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentences. The appellant remains in custody to undergo the remainder of his life sentence.
Case Details
- Case Title: Mahesh Alias Munna Yadav v. State of U.P.
- Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 3410 of 2016
- Bench: Justice Chandra Dhari Singh and Justice Devendra Singh-I
- Date of Judgment: March 18, 2026
