State of U.P v. Suresh Shah Sisodia and Others) under Sections

lodged by the complainant Rajbahadur (PW-1), son of Shri Banwarilal, resident of 2 NC413 No. 558 of 2025 Sureshpuri, Etah, Police Station Kotwali, District Etah, is that his school's land is situated south of Sangam Vihar Colony, near the railway bridge, G.T. Road, Etah, and his wife is the manager of this school. An Airtel tower was being installed on the said school land. On the morning οι 21.09.2005, at about 7:30 AM, the complainant and his son Dharmendra went to inspect the school land where the Airtel tower was being installed. At that location, Suresh Shah Sisodia, Rahul Kumar, Saurabh, Munish Shah, Brijesh Shah, Ashish Kumar, and Raju son of Nathu Singh were present. Suresh Shah was armed with a rifle. Brijesh Shah and Munish Shah had licensed guns, and Saurabh had his mother Prakash Devi's licensed gun. These individuals arrived armed. Suresh Shah Sisodia confronted the complaint stating, "You have installed the tower despite the ongoing court case." The complainant replied that it was installed by order of the court and advised that if Suresh Shah had any objection, he should pursue it in court. Upon this. Suresh Shah Sisodia instructed all his companions to surround the complainant and his son and "kill them with bullets, so neither the problem (bamboo) remains, nor the flute plays". Hearing this, the complainant ran and took cover, but his son was surrounded. Suresh Shah Sisodia with his licensed rifle, Brijesh Shah and Munish Shah with their rifles, licensed guns, and revolvers, Saurabh with his mother Prakash Devi's licensed gun, Raju with a country-made pistol (tamancha), Rahul with a licensed gun, and Ashish with a country-made pistol (tamancha) opened fire, injuring the complainant's son Dharmendra in the body. Due to the complainant's shouts, Sukhveer Singh, Ram Naresh, Jitendra, and many other people from the neighbourhood arrived. Seeing the pressure from these people, the accused persons fled, threatening that if they found Rajbahadur in the future, they would kill him. The complainant took his injured son to Etah. He then went to the police station to lodge the report and requested appropriate action and medical examination of his son at the District Hospital, Etah."

6. Subsequent to aforesaid FIR, Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned crime number in terms of Chapter-XII Cr.P.C. Accordingly, Investigating Officer examined the first informant, the injured and other witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He also prepared the site plan regarding the place of occurrence (Ext-Ka-6). On the basis of material collected by him, during course of investigation, he came to the conclusion that complicity of only three of the named accused i.e. (1) Suresh Shah,, (2) Saurabh and (3) Rahul is established in the crime in question. He, report against therefore, opined aforementioned accused. Accordingly, Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet/police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. (Ext-Ka-7) proved by PW-5 Inspector Mohd. Arif Khan, whereby aforementioned named accused were charge sheeted for an offence punishable under Sections 504 and 307 IPC. to submit a charge sheet/police 3 NC413 No. 558 of 2025

7. After submission of aforementioned charge sheet/police report, cognizance was taken upon same by the Jurisdictional Magistrate in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. However, as offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, therefore, concerned Magistrate after complying with the formality contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C. i.e. supply of documents to charge sheeted accused, committed the case to the Court of Sessions as per mandate of Section 209 Cr.P.C.. Resultantly, Sessions Trial No. 375 of 2008 (State Vs. Suresh Shah and Others), under Sections 504 and 307 IPC, Police Station-Kotwali Nagar, District-Etah came to be registered

8. Concerned Sessions Judge proceeded with the trial. He, accordingly, in compliance of Section 228 Cr.P.C., framed charges against the charge sheeted accused, who denied the same, pleaded innocence and demanded trial. Resultantly, the trial procedure commenced.

9. Prosecution in discharge of it's burden to bring home the charges so framed against charge sheeted accused, adduced the following witnesses;- (i). PW-1, Raj Bahadur (first informant/Eye witness) (ii). PW-2, Dharmendra (Injured/Eye witness) (iii). PW-3, CC 77 Ram Murti (Formal Witness) (iv). PW-4, Dr. R.P. Lal (Medical Officer) (v). PW-5, Inspector Mohd. Arif Khan (Investigating Officer)

10. Apart from above, the prosecution in proof of it's case also relied upon documentary evidence, which is tabulated herein under:- (i). Ext-Ka-1 Written report submitted by the first informant PW-1 Raj Bahadur and proved by PW-1. (ii). Ext-Ka-2 Check FIR dated 21.09.2025 prepared by PW-3 Constable Clerk 77 Ram Murti and also proved by PW-3. (iii). Ext-Ka-3, Copy of General Diary of Police Station-Kotwali Nagar, District-Etah proved by PW-3. (iv). Ext-Ka-4, X-Ray report prepared by Dr. S. Lal and proved by PW-4 Dr. R.P. Lal (Medical Officer). (v). Ext-Ka-5, Referral slip prepared by District Hospital Etah and proved by PW-4 Dr. R.P. Lal (Medical Officer). 4 NC413 No. 558 of 2025 (vi). Ext-Ka-6, Site Plan prepared by the Investigating Officer PW-5 Inspector Mohd. Arif Khan and also proved by PW-5. (vii). Ext-Ka-7, Charge Sheet No. 232/2006 was prepared by PW-5 Inspector Mohd. Arif Khan and also proved by PW-5.

11. Ultimately, Court below upon appraisal and appreciation of evidence on record, came to the conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond doubt. Consequently, by means of the impugned judgment dated 27.06.2025, Court below acquitted the accused -respondents 2, 3 and 4 of the charges framed against them.

12. Perusal of impugned judgment passed by Court below will go to show that present case is a case of direct evidence. PW-1 Raj Bahadur, is the first informant and alleges to be an eye witness of the occurrence. PW-2 Dharmendra is an injured eye witness of the occurrence. The injuries alleged to have been sustained by the injured were sought to be proved by means of the X-Ray report (Ext-Ka-5). In view of above, two questions arose before Court below for it's consideration. (i). Whether the presence of PW-1 and PW-2 at the time and place of the occurrence is established beyond doubut and secondly whether they are reliable. (ii). Whether X-Ray report (Ext-Ka-4) relied upon by the prosecution stands proved and therefore, reliable. Since it was pleaded by the prosecution before Court below that the medical evidence on record fully supports the prosecution story, therefore, the X-Ray- report is extracted herein below;- "1. Radio-opaque metallic density shadow of 5 ml diameter was found on the right side of the chest, and a shadow of similar size and type was also found in the neck.

2. Metallic powder was found in the upper part of the right thigh. Fracture was found in both bones (radius, ulna) of the right forearm and carpal bones of the right hand. Both bones were broken from one end to the other (compound fracture), and metallic powder was present at the site of the fracture. The said report is in the handwriting and signature of Dr. S. Lal." (iii). It needs to be noticed that the medico legal report of the injured was not filed by the prosecution before Court below.

13. Court below has disbelieved the two eye witnesses i.e. PW-1 Raj 5 NC413 No. 558 of 2025 Bahadur, first informant and PW-2 Dharmendra, the injured. It has further held that the X-Ray report does not stand proved according to law and therefore, unworthy of acceptance and reliance. On the above findings, Court below came to the conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove and establish the very story, which it set out to prove. Resultantly, Court below acquitted the accused-respondents 2, 3 and 4 of the charges framed against them in aforementioned Sessions Trial.

14. Thus feeling aggrieved by the aforementioned impugned judgment of acquittal dated 27.06.2025 passed by Court below, informant/appellant herein has now approached this Court by means of present criminal appeal.

15. Mr. Sunil Kumar Yadav, the learned counsel for appellant in challenge to the impugned judgment dated 27.06.2025, contends that Court below has erred in law and fact in passing the impugned judgment. As such, the same is liable to be set aside by this Court.

16. PW-1 Raj Bahadur, first informant, in his deposition before Court below, has fully supported the prosecution case. Irrespective of above, Court below has disbelieved PW-1 and acquitted the accused-respondents of the charges framed against them.

17. It is then contended by the learned counsel for applicant/appellant that PW-2 Dharmendra is an injured eye witness. However, in spite of above, he has been disbelived by Court below. Referring to the judgment of Supreme Court in Manjeet Singh Vs. State of Haryana and Others, 2021 SCC Online SC 632, it is urged by the learned counsel for applicant/appellant that the deposition of an injured eye witness has greater evidentiary value than an ordinary witness. The same can be discarded only on compelling reason. Even though, no compelling reason emerged on record so as to discard aforementioned injured eye witness yet Court below has discarded the deposition of PW-2, which is illegal. Reliance was placed upon paragraph-20 of the aforesaid report. Accordingly, the same is reproduced herein under;- "20. Now thereafter when in the examination-in-chief the appellant herein — victim — injured eyewitness has specifically named the private respondents herein with specific role attributed to them, the learned trial court as well as the High Court ought to have summoned the private respondents herein to face the trial. At this stage it is required to be noted that so far as the appellant herein is concerned he is an injured eyewitness. As observed by this Court in State of M.P. v. Mansingh [State of M.P. v. Mansingh, (2003) 10 SCC 414 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 390] (para 9); 6 NC413 No. 558 of 2025 Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P. [Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P., (2010) 10 SCC 259 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1262] ; State of U.P. v. Naresh [State of U.P. v. Naresh, (2011) 4 SCC 324 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 216] , the evidence of an injured eyewitness has greater evidential value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly. As observed hereinabove while exercising the powers under Section 319CrPC the court has not to wait till the cross-examination and on the basis of the examination-in-chief of a witness if a case is made out, a person can be summoned to face the trial under Section 319CrPC."

18. It is lastly contended by the learned counsel for appellant that the X-Ray report dated 29.10.2025 of the injured Dharmendra prepared by Dr. S. Lal has been disbelieved by Court below by assigning superficial reasons. Aforementioned supplementary medico legal report of injured Dharmendra has been disbelieved by Court below on extra judicial grounds.

19. On the edifice of aforementioned submissions, the learned counsel for appellant thus urged that the impugned judgment passed by Court below is manifestly illegal and therefore, liable to be set aside by this Court.

20. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 has vehemently opposed the present appeal. Learned A.G.A. contends that the impugned judgment and order passed by Court below is perfectly just and legal. Court below has assigned clear and categorical reasons for disbelieving PW-1 and PW-2 and for discarding the X-Ray report of the injured. As such, Court below has neither failed to consider any material piece of evidence nor has the Court below misread a material piece of evidence. Thus Court below has exercised it's jurisdiction diligently and not with material irregularity. In view of above, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed.

21. Having heard the learned counsel for appellant the learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that Court below has acquitted the accused-respondents-2, 3 and 4 on the following grounds;- (A) PW-1 Raj Bahadur (first informant) is not worthy of acceptance and credit, (B) PW-2 Dharmendra, who is an injured witness is also not worthy of acceptance inasmuch as, the two facts i.e. the injuries alleged to have been sustained by him in the occurrence in question and his subsequently going to the Police Station to lodge the FIR are irreconcilable. (C) The X-Ray report prepared by Dr. S. Lal (radiologist) cannot be said to 7 NC413 No. 558 of 2025 be proved in evidence, (D) The prosecution story as is discernible from the record does not inspire confidence in view of inherent contradictions exaggeration and alteration in the prosecution case.

22. At this juncture, it shall be useful to reproduce the observations made by Court below itself in paragraphs 27 and 31 of the impugned judgment for disbelieving the prosecution case. Accordingly, the same are extracted herein below;- "27. The prosecution evidence, when viewed in its entirety, suffers from serious defects. The star witnesses PW-1 and PW-2 are an interested father and son, with PW-1 having a criminal background and a clear motive of enmity due to land disputes. There are contradictions and improvements in their testimonies. The FIR itself is tainted by unauthorized alteration of penal sections. The medical evidence, while confirming firearm injuries, does not have the primary injury report on record and PW-3 statement regarding PW-2 coming to the police satiation creates strong suspicion about medical report. Most importantly, the investigation is demonstrably shoddy, incomplete, and biased, as admitted by PW-5. The cumulative effect of these infirmities creates a substantial doubt regarding the veracity of the prosecution's case. The inconsistencies between the statements of the two key prosecution witnesses, coupled with the glaring onissions and irregularities in the investigation, particularly the failure of the Investigating Officer to conduct basic and essential investigative steps, significantly erode the reliability of the evidence presented. The fact that the initial FIR was altered without proper authorization further compounds the suspicion that the case was nol handled with the impartiality and diligence required by law.

31. To prove attempt to murder, the prosecution must establish not only the act of firing but also the intention or knowledge requisite for murder. The use of firearms like rifles and guns can, in some circumstances, indicate such an intent. PW-2 did sustain firearm Injuries which were opined as grievous by PW-4. However, the flaws highlighted above are critical and collectively weaken the prosecution's ability to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. Firstly, the unauthorized alteration of Section 324 IPC to 307 IPC in the FIR makes the very foundation of the Section 307 IPC charge suspicious, as this manipulation at the initial stage casts a long shadow over the genuineness of the intent to murder. Secondly, the investigation was extremely poor, as PW-5 did not collect crucial evidence, did not interrogate the accused, and did not even visit the site, making it impossible to determine the true nature of the incident from such an investigation, and leaving the exact range of fire, the trajectory of bullets, the number of shots fired by each accused, and whether the accused party also suffered any aggression unaddressed. Thirdly, the 8 NC413 No. 558 of 2025 testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2, while implicating the accused, are from highly interested witnesses involved in a bitter land dispute with the accused, and PW-1 also has a criminal background; while their evidence cannot be discarded solely on the ground of interest or relationship, it requires very careful and cautious scrutiny, which, in this case, reveals significant contradictions, improvements, and inherent improbabilities, as discussed earlier, such as PW-1 giving a very detailed account of weapons, while PW. 2 told police he didn't know who had which weapon, creating a material contradiction. Fourthly, the defence theory that the complainant party was the aggressor and PW-2 might have been injured in their own actions, or that the accused fired in self-defence, cannot be dismissed lightly given the severe deficiencies in the prosecution's own evidence and investigation, with the Investigating Officer's failure to investigate the other cross-complaint or defence versior being telling and indicating a one-sided investigation. Fifthly, PW-1's vacillating stand on recovery of empty cartridges and PW-5's denial of receiving any such cartridges from witnesses further shatters the prosecution case regarding firearm use by specific accused, and the absence of any ballistic report linking recovered cartridges to the alleged weapons of the accused is a critical lacuna. Lastly PW-3 statement about coming of PW-2 at the police station with the kind of injuries as detailed in medical report, seems impossible and suggest manipulation in the medical report."

23. Parameters for examining the veracity of a judgment of acquittal is no longer res-integra and stands settled by the Apex Court in numerous judgments. We do not wish to burden our judgment with the numerous authorities of the Apex Court. We shall refer to only one judgment of the Apex Court in Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 561. Paragraphs 39 and 40 of the aforesaid judgment are relevant for the present purposes and are reproduced hereinafter:- "39. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of interference by an appellate Court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court in favour of the accused has to be exercised within the four corners of the following principles:- (a) That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; (b) That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; (c) That no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record.

40. The appellate Court, in order to interfere with the judgment of acquittal would have to record pertinent findings on the above factors if it is inclined to reverse the 9 NC413 No. 558 of 2025 judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court."

24. When the impugned judgment is examined in the light of above, it is apparent that Court below has neither ignored a material piece of evidence nor has the Court below misread any material piece of evidence. The reasons assigned by Court below in support of the it's conclusion that the prosecution case is improbable and not worthy of acceptance cannot be said to be perverse or erroneous. In spite of our repeated query, as to how the reasons recorded by trial Court for disbelieving the prosecution case stand dislodged as per the submissions urged by the learned counsel for appellant, he could not cut any ice.

25. PW-1 Raj Bahadur, the first informant has been disbelieved by Court below on the ground that there is a strong motive with PW-1 for falsely implicating the named accused on account of pre-existing enmity. Secondly, as per the deposition of PW-1, he himself took refuge at a distance of 50 feets from the place of occurrence and therefore, in all probability, he could not have seen the occurrence with clarity and precession. The deposition of PW-1 is contradictory regarding the legal status of the land on which, the tower was sought to be installed by the accused. PW-2 has been disbelieved by Court below on the ground that prima-facie he could not have sustained the injuries in the occurrence in question. Had PW-2 sustained the injuries as depicted in the radiological report, it is difficult to understand as to how he could come to the police station in an unconscious state with serious injuries, particularly, when the primary medico legal examination report of the injured PW-2 has not been produced before Court. Furthermore, the occurrence in question is alleged to have been witnessed by independent witnesses but no independent witness was adduced to prove the occurrence in question. PW-1 and PW-2 are interested witnesses being father and son yet in spite of above, no attempt was made by the prosecution to lead any independent witness to give weight to the prosecution case.

26. Much reliance was placed by the learned counsel for appellant upon the radiological report of the injured on the basis of which, it was strenuously urged before us that the medical evidence on record clearly proves the prosecution case and therefore, the accused respondents 2, 3 and 4 are liable to be convicted of the charges framed against them. The said argument has been raised only to be rejected. Section 45 of the Evidence Act deals with expert opinion. Accordingly, Section 45 of the Evidence Act is reproduced 10 NC413 No. 558 of 2025 herein under:- "45. Opinions of experts. When the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law, or of science or art, or as to identity of handwriting [or finger impressions] [Inserted by Act 5 of 1899, Section 3. For discussion in Council as to whether [finger impressions] include [thumb impressions,] see Gazette of India, 1898, Pt. VI, p.24.], the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, [or in questions as to identity of handwriting] [Inserted by Act 18 of 1871, Section 4.] [or finger-impressions] [Inserted by Act 5 of 1899, Section 3. For discussion in Council as to whether [Finger impressions] include [thumb impressions,] see Gazette of India, 1898, Pt.VI, p.24.] are relevant facts.Such persons are called experts.Illustrations (a)The questions is, whether the death of A was caused by poison. The opinions of experts as to the symptoms produced by the poison by which A is supposed to have died, are relevant. (b)the question is, whether A, at the time of doing a certain act, was, by reason of unsoundness of mind, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law. The opinions of experts upon the question whether the symptoms exhibited by A commonly show unsoundness of mind, and whether such unsoundness of mind usually renders persons incapable of knowing the nature of the acts which they do, or of knowing that what they do is either wrong or contrary to law, are relevant. (c)The question is, whether a certain document was written by A. Another document is produced which is proved or admitted to have been written by A. The opinions of experts on the question whether the two documents were written by the same person or by different persons, are relevant."

27. Admittedly, the radiological report was prepared by Dr. S. Lal, who did not depose before Court below. In the absence of the deposition of the author of the radiological report, which is basically an expert report, it cannot be said that the said report stands proved in accordance with law. We, therefore, 11 NC413 No. 558 of 2025 do not find any infirmity in the conclusion drawn by Court below in discarding the same. Reference be made to the judgment of Supreme Court Ramesh Chandra Agrawal Vs. Regency Hospital Limited and Others, (2009) 9 SCC 709, wherein it has been held that the expert is required to be adduced in evidence to prove his report. For ready reference, paragraphs 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the aforesaid report, which are relevant for the controversy in hand, are extracted herein under;- "16. The law of evidence is designed to ensure that the court considers only that evidence which will enable it to reach a reliable conclusion. The first and foremost requirement for an expert evidence to be admissible is that it is necessary to hear the expert evidence. The test is that the matter is outside the knowledge and experience of the layperson. Thus, there is a need to hear an expert opinion where there is a medical issue to be settled. The scientific question involved is assumed to be not within the court's knowledge. Thus cases where the science involved, is highly specialised and perhaps even esoteric, the central role of an expert cannot be disputed. The other requirements for the admissibility of expert evidence are: (i) that the expert must be within a recognised field of expertise, (ii) that the evidence must be based on reliable principles, and (iii) that the expert must be qualified in that discipline. (See Errors, Medicine and the Law, Alan Merry and Alexander McCall Smith, 2001 Edn., Cambridge University Press, p. 178.)

17. Section 45 of the Evidence Act, 1872 speaks of expert evidence. It reads as under: "45. Opinions of experts. When the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law, or of science, or art, or as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions, the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, or in questions as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions are relevant facts. a) The question is, whether the death of A was caused by poison. The opinions of experts as to the symptoms produced by the poison by which A is supposed to have died, are relevant. (b) The question is, whether A, at the time of doing a certain act, was, by reason of unsoundness of mind, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law. 12 NC413 No. 558 of 2025 The opinions of experts upon the question whether the symptoms exhibited by A commonly show unsoundness of mind, and whether such unsoundness of mind usually renders persons incapable of knowing the nature of the acts which they do, or of knowing that what they do is either wrong or contrary to law, are relevant. (c) The question is, whether a certain document was written by A. Another document is produced which is proved or admitted to have been written by A. The opinions of experts on the question whether the two documents were written by the same person or by different persons, are relevant."

18. The importance of the provision has been explained in State of H.P. v. Jai Lalf. It is held, that, Section 45 of the Evidence Act which makes opinion of experts admissible lays down, that, when the court has to form an opinion persons upon a point of foreign law, or of science, or art, or as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions, the opinions upon that point of pers specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, or in questions as to identity of handwriting, or finger impressions are relevant facts. Therefore, in order to bring the evidence of a witness as that of an expert it has to be shown that he has made a special study of the subject or acquired a special experience therein or in other words that he is skilled and has adequate knowledge of the subject.

19. It is not the province of the expert to act as Judge or Jury. It is stated in Titli v. Alfred Robert Jones³ that the real function of the expert is to put before the court all the materials, together with reasons which induce him to come to the conclusion, so that the court, although not an expert, may form its own judgment by its own observation of those materials.

20. An expert is not a witness of fact and his evidence is really of an advisory character. The duty of an expert witness is to furnish the Judge with the necessary scientific criteria for testing the accuracy of the conclusions so as to enable the Judge to form his independent judgment by the application of these criteria to the facts proved by the evidence of the case. The scientific opinion evidence, if intelligible, convincing and tested becomes a factor and often an important factor for consideration along with other evidence of the case. The credibility of such a witness depends on the reasons stated in support of his conclusions and the data and material furnished which form the basis of his conclusions. (See Malay Kumar Ganguly v. Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee, SCC p. 249, para 34.)

21. In State of Maharashtra v. Damut, it has been laid down that without examining the expert as a witness in court, no reliance can be placed on an opinion alone. In this regard, it has been observed in State (Delhi Admn.) v. Pali Ram that "no expert would claim today that he could be absolutely sure that his opinion was correct, expert depends to a great extent upon the materials put before him and the nature of 13 NC413 No. 558 of 2025 question put to him".

22. In the article "Relevancy of Expert's Opinion" it has been opined that the value of expert opinion rests on the facts on which it is based and his competency for forming a reliable opinion. The evidentiary value of the opinion of an expert depends on the facts upon which it is based and also the validity of the process by which the conclusion is reached. Thus the idea that is proposed in its crux means that the importance of an opinion is decided on the basis of the credibility of the expert and the relevant facts supporting the opinion so that its accuracy can be crosschecked. Therefore, the emphasis has been on the data on the basis of which opinion is formed. The same is clear from the following inference: "Mere assertion without mentioning the data or basis is not evidence, even if it comes from an expert, Where the experts give no real data in support of their opinion, the evidence even though admissible, may be excluded from consideration as affording no assistance in arriving at the correct value."

28. In view of the discussion made above, the inescapable conclusion is that Court below has not committed any illegality in passing the judgment of acquittal in favour of accused-opposite parties 2, 3 and 4. Court below has assigned cogent and valid reasons for disbelieving the prosecution case. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any perversity either as Court below has scrutinized the entire evidence on record. Learned counsel for appellant could not dislodge the reasons assigned by Court below for disbelieving the prosecution case. Even upon re-appraisal and re- appreciation of the evidence on record, we could not find any such evidence or fact to upset the impugned judgment passed by Court below.

29. As a result, the present appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed.

30. It is, accordingly, dismissed. October 7, 2025 Arshad Ajay Kumar-II,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.) ARSHAD MAHMOOD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

lodged by the complainant Rajbahadur (PW-1), son of Shri Banwarilal, resident of 2 NC413 No. 558 of 2025 Sureshpuri, Etah, Police Station Kotwali, District Etah, is that his school's land is situated south of Sangam Vihar Colony, near the railway bridge, G.T. Road, Etah, and his wife is the manager of this school. An Airtel tower was being installed on the said school land. On the morning οι 21.09.2005, at about 7:30 AM, the complainant and his son Dharmendra went to inspect the school land where the Airtel tower was being installed. At that location, Suresh Shah Sisodia, Rahul Kumar, Saurabh, Munish Shah, Brijesh Shah, Ashish Kumar, and Raju son of Nathu Singh were present. Suresh Shah was armed with a rifle. Brijesh Shah and Munish Shah had licensed guns, and Saurabh had his mother Prakash Devi's licensed gun. These individuals arrived armed. Suresh Shah Sisodia confronted the complaint stating, "You have installed the tower despite the ongoing court case." The complainant replied that it was installed by order of the court and advised that if Suresh Shah had any objection, he should pursue it in court. Upon this. Suresh Shah Sisodia instructed all his companions to surround the complainant and his son and "kill them with bullets, so neither the problem (bamboo) remains, nor the flute plays". Hearing this, the complainant ran and took cover, but his son was surrounded. Suresh Shah Sisodia with his licensed rifle, Brijesh Shah and Munish Shah with their rifles, licensed guns, and revolvers, Saurabh with his mother Prakash Devi's licensed gun, Raju with a country-made pistol (tamancha), Rahul with a licensed gun, and Ashish with a country-made pistol (tamancha) opened fire, injuring the complainant's son Dharmendra in the body. Due to the complainant's shouts, Sukhveer Singh, Ram Naresh, Jitendra, and many other people from the neighbourhood arrived. Seeing the pressure from these people, the accused persons fled, threatening that if they found Rajbahadur in the future, they would kill him. The complainant took his injured son to Etah. He then went to the police station to lodge the report and requested appropriate action and medical examination of his son at the District Hospital, Etah."

6. Subsequent to aforesaid FIR, Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned crime number in terms of Chapter-XII Cr.P.C. Accordingly, Investigating Officer examined the first informant, the injured and other witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He also prepared the site plan regarding the place of occurrence (Ext-Ka-6). On the basis of material collected by him, during course of investigation, he came to the conclusion that complicity of only three of the named accused i.e. (1) Suresh Shah,, (2) Saurabh and (3) Rahul is established in the crime in question. He, report against therefore, opined aforementioned accused. Accordingly, Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet/police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. (Ext-Ka-7) proved by PW-5 Inspector Mohd. Arif Khan, whereby aforementioned named accused were charge sheeted for an offence punishable under Sections 504 and 307 IPC. to submit a charge sheet/police 3 NC413 No. 558 of 2025

7. After submission of aforementioned charge sheet/police report, cognizance was taken upon same by the Jurisdictional Magistrate in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. However, as offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, therefore, concerned Magistrate after complying with the formality contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C. i.e. supply of documents to charge sheeted accused, committed the case to the Court of Sessions as per mandate of Section 209 Cr.P.C.. Resultantly, Sessions Trial No. 375 of 2008 (State Vs. Suresh Shah and Others), under Sections 504 and 307 IPC, Police Station-Kotwali Nagar, District-Etah came to be registered

8. Concerned Sessions Judge proceeded with the trial. He, accordingly, in compliance of Section 228 Cr.P.C., framed charges against the charge sheeted accused, who denied the same, pleaded innocence and demanded trial. Resultantly, the trial procedure commenced.

9. Prosecution in discharge of it's burden to bring home the charges so framed against charge sheeted accused, adduced the following witnesses;- (i). PW-1, Raj Bahadur (first informant/Eye witness) (ii). PW-2, Dharmendra (Injured/Eye witness) (iii). PW-3, CC 77 Ram Murti (Formal Witness) (iv). PW-4, Dr. R.P. Lal (Medical Officer) (v). PW-5, Inspector Mohd. Arif Khan (Investigating Officer)

10. Apart from above, the prosecution in proof of it's case also relied upon documentary evidence, which is tabulated herein under:- (i). Ext-Ka-1 Written report submitted by the first informant PW-1 Raj Bahadur and proved by PW-1. (ii). Ext-Ka-2 Check FIR dated 21.09.2025 prepared by PW-3 Constable Clerk 77 Ram Murti and also proved by PW-3. (iii). Ext-Ka-3, Copy of General Diary of Police Station-Kotwali Nagar, District-Etah proved by PW-3. (iv). Ext-Ka-4, X-Ray report prepared by Dr. S. Lal and proved by PW-4 Dr. R.P. Lal (Medical Officer). (v). Ext-Ka-5, Referral slip prepared by District Hospital Etah and proved by PW-4 Dr. R.P. Lal (Medical Officer). 4 NC413 No. 558 of 2025 (vi). Ext-Ka-6, Site Plan prepared by the Investigating Officer PW-5 Inspector Mohd. Arif Khan and also proved by PW-5. (vii). Ext-Ka-7, Charge Sheet No. 232/2006 was prepared by PW-5 Inspector Mohd. Arif Khan and also proved by PW-5.

11. Ultimately, Court below upon appraisal and appreciation of evidence on record, came to the conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond doubt. Consequently, by means of the impugned judgment dated 27.06.2025, Court below acquitted the accused -respondents 2, 3 and 4 of the charges framed against them.

12. Perusal of impugned judgment passed by Court below will go to show that present case is a case of direct evidence. PW-1 Raj Bahadur, is the first informant and alleges to be an eye witness of the occurrence. PW-2 Dharmendra is an injured eye witness of the occurrence. The injuries alleged to have been sustained by the injured were sought to be proved by means of the X-Ray report (Ext-Ka-5). In view of above, two questions arose before Court below for it's consideration. (i). Whether the presence of PW-1 and PW-2 at the time and place of the occurrence is established beyond doubut and secondly whether they are reliable. (ii). Whether X-Ray report (Ext-Ka-4) relied upon by the prosecution stands proved and therefore, reliable. Since it was pleaded by the prosecution before Court below that the medical evidence on record fully supports the prosecution story, therefore, the X-Ray- report is extracted herein below;- "1. Radio-opaque metallic density shadow of 5 ml diameter was found on the right side of the chest, and a shadow of similar size and type was also found in the neck.

2. Metallic powder was found in the upper part of the right thigh. Fracture was found in both bones (radius, ulna) of the right forearm and carpal bones of the right hand. Both bones were broken from one end to the other (compound fracture), and metallic powder was present at the site of the fracture. The said report is in the handwriting and signature of Dr. S. Lal." (iii). It needs to be noticed that the medico legal report of the injured was not filed by the prosecution before Court below.

13. Court below has disbelieved the two eye witnesses i.e. PW-1 Raj 5 NC413 No. 558 of 2025 Bahadur, first informant and PW-2 Dharmendra, the injured. It has further held that the X-Ray report does not stand proved according to law and therefore, unworthy of acceptance and reliance. On the above findings, Court below came to the conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove and establish the very story, which it set out to prove. Resultantly, Court below acquitted the accused-respondents 2, 3 and 4 of the charges framed against them in aforementioned Sessions Trial.

14. Thus feeling aggrieved by the aforementioned impugned judgment of acquittal dated 27.06.2025 passed by Court below, informant/appellant herein has now approached this Court by means of present criminal appeal.

15. Mr. Sunil Kumar Yadav, the learned counsel for appellant in challenge to the impugned judgment dated 27.06.2025, contends that Court below has erred in law and fact in passing the impugned judgment. As such, the same is liable to be set aside by this Court.

16. PW-1 Raj Bahadur, first informant, in his deposition before Court below, has fully supported the prosecution case. Irrespective of above, Court below has disbelieved PW-1 and acquitted the accused-respondents of the charges framed against them.

17. It is then contended by the learned counsel for applicant/appellant that PW-2 Dharmendra is an injured eye witness. However, in spite of above, he has been disbelived by Court below. Referring to the judgment of Supreme Court in Manjeet Singh Vs. State of Haryana and Others, 2021 SCC Online SC 632, it is urged by the learned counsel for applicant/appellant that the deposition of an injured eye witness has greater evidentiary value than an ordinary witness. The same can be discarded only on compelling reason. Even though, no compelling reason emerged on record so as to discard aforementioned injured eye witness yet Court below has discarded the deposition of PW-2, which is illegal. Reliance was placed upon paragraph-20 of the aforesaid report. Accordingly, the same is reproduced herein under;- "20. Now thereafter when in the examination-in-chief the appellant herein — victim — injured eyewitness has specifically named the private respondents herein with specific role attributed to them, the learned trial court as well as the High Court ought to have summoned the private respondents herein to face the trial. At this stage it is required to be noted that so far as the appellant herein is concerned he is an injured eyewitness. As observed by this Court in State of M.P. v. Mansingh [State of M.P. v. Mansingh, (2003) 10 SCC 414 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 390] (para 9); 6 NC413 No. 558 of 2025 Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P. [Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P., (2010) 10 SCC 259 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1262] ; State of U.P. v. Naresh [State of U.P. v. Naresh, (2011) 4 SCC 324 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 216] , the evidence of an injured eyewitness has greater evidential value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly. As observed hereinabove while exercising the powers under Section 319CrPC the court has not to wait till the cross-examination and on the basis of the examination-in-chief of a witness if a case is made out, a person can be summoned to face the trial under Section 319CrPC."

18. It is lastly contended by the learned counsel for appellant that the X-Ray report dated 29.10.2025 of the injured Dharmendra prepared by Dr. S. Lal has been disbelieved by Court below by assigning superficial reasons. Aforementioned supplementary medico legal report of injured Dharmendra has been disbelieved by Court below on extra judicial grounds.

19. On the edifice of aforementioned submissions, the learned counsel for appellant thus urged that the impugned judgment passed by Court below is manifestly illegal and therefore, liable to be set aside by this Court.

20. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 has vehemently opposed the present appeal. Learned A.G.A. contends that the impugned judgment and order passed by Court below is perfectly just and legal. Court below has assigned clear and categorical reasons for disbelieving PW-1 and PW-2 and for discarding the X-Ray report of the injured. As such, Court below has neither failed to consider any material piece of evidence nor has the Court below misread a material piece of evidence. Thus Court below has exercised it's jurisdiction diligently and not with material irregularity. In view of above, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed.

21. Having heard the learned counsel for appellant the learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that Court below has acquitted the accused-respondents-2, 3 and 4 on the following grounds;- (A) PW-1 Raj Bahadur (first informant) is not worthy of acceptance and credit, (B) PW-2 Dharmendra, who is an injured witness is also not worthy of acceptance inasmuch as, the two facts i.e. the injuries alleged to have been sustained by him in the occurrence in question and his subsequently going to the Police Station to lodge the FIR are irreconcilable. (C) The X-Ray report prepared by Dr. S. Lal (radiologist) cannot be said to 7 NC413 No. 558 of 2025 be proved in evidence, (D) The prosecution story as is discernible from the record does not inspire confidence in view of inherent contradictions exaggeration and alteration in the prosecution case.

22. At this juncture, it shall be useful to reproduce the observations made by Court below itself in paragraphs 27 and 31 of the impugned judgment for disbelieving the prosecution case. Accordingly, the same are extracted herein below;- "27. The prosecution evidence, when viewed in its entirety, suffers from serious defects. The star witnesses PW-1 and PW-2 are an interested father and son, with PW-1 having a criminal background and a clear motive of enmity due to land disputes. There are contradictions and improvements in their testimonies. The FIR itself is tainted by unauthorized alteration of penal sections. The medical evidence, while confirming firearm injuries, does not have the primary injury report on record and PW-3 statement regarding PW-2 coming to the police satiation creates strong suspicion about medical report. Most importantly, the investigation is demonstrably shoddy, incomplete, and biased, as admitted by PW-5. The cumulative effect of these infirmities creates a substantial doubt regarding the veracity of the prosecution's case. The inconsistencies between the statements of the two key prosecution witnesses, coupled with the glaring onissions and irregularities in the investigation, particularly the failure of the Investigating Officer to conduct basic and essential investigative steps, significantly erode the reliability of the evidence presented. The fact that the initial FIR was altered without proper authorization further compounds the suspicion that the case was nol handled with the impartiality and diligence required by law.

31. To prove attempt to murder, the prosecution must establish not only the act of firing but also the intention or knowledge requisite for murder. The use of firearms like rifles and guns can, in some circumstances, indicate such an intent. PW-2 did sustain firearm Injuries which were opined as grievous by PW-4. However, the flaws highlighted above are critical and collectively weaken the prosecution's ability to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. Firstly, the unauthorized alteration of Section 324 IPC to 307 IPC in the FIR makes the very foundation of the Section 307 IPC charge suspicious, as this manipulation at the initial stage casts a long shadow over the genuineness of the intent to murder. Secondly, the investigation was extremely poor, as PW-5 did not collect crucial evidence, did not interrogate the accused, and did not even visit the site, making it impossible to determine the true nature of the incident from such an investigation, and leaving the exact range of fire, the trajectory of bullets, the number of shots fired by each accused, and whether the accused party also suffered any aggression unaddressed. Thirdly, the 8 NC413 No. 558 of 2025 testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2, while implicating the accused, are from highly interested witnesses involved in a bitter land dispute with the accused, and PW-1 also has a criminal background; while their evidence cannot be discarded solely on the ground of interest or relationship, it requires very careful and cautious scrutiny, which, in this case, reveals significant contradictions, improvements, and inherent improbabilities, as discussed earlier, such as PW-1 giving a very detailed account of weapons, while PW. 2 told police he didn't know who had which weapon, creating a material contradiction. Fourthly, the defence theory that the complainant party was the aggressor and PW-2 might have been injured in their own actions, or that the accused fired in self-defence, cannot be dismissed lightly given the severe deficiencies in the prosecution's own evidence and investigation, with the Investigating Officer's failure to investigate the other cross-complaint or defence versior being telling and indicating a one-sided investigation. Fifthly, PW-1's vacillating stand on recovery of empty cartridges and PW-5's denial of receiving any such cartridges from witnesses further shatters the prosecution case regarding firearm use by specific accused, and the absence of any ballistic report linking recovered cartridges to the alleged weapons of the accused is a critical lacuna. Lastly PW-3 statement about coming of PW-2 at the police station with the kind of injuries as detailed in medical report, seems impossible and suggest manipulation in the medical report."

23. Parameters for examining the veracity of a judgment of acquittal is no longer res-integra and stands settled by the Apex Court in numerous judgments. We do not wish to burden our judgment with the numerous authorities of the Apex Court. We shall refer to only one judgment of the Apex Court in Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 561. Paragraphs 39 and 40 of the aforesaid judgment are relevant for the present purposes and are reproduced hereinafter:- "39. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of interference by an appellate Court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court in favour of the accused has to be exercised within the four corners of the following principles:- (a) That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; (b) That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; (c) That no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record.

40. The appellate Court, in order to interfere with the judgment of acquittal would have to record pertinent findings on the above factors if it is inclined to reverse the 9 NC413 No. 558 of 2025 judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court."

24. When the impugned judgment is examined in the light of above, it is apparent that Court below has neither ignored a material piece of evidence nor has the Court below misread any material piece of evidence. The reasons assigned by Court below in support of the it's conclusion that the prosecution case is improbable and not worthy of acceptance cannot be said to be perverse or erroneous. In spite of our repeated query, as to how the reasons recorded by trial Court for disbelieving the prosecution case stand dislodged as per the submissions urged by the learned counsel for appellant, he could not cut any ice.

25. PW-1 Raj Bahadur, the first informant has been disbelieved by Court below on the ground that there is a strong motive with PW-1 for falsely implicating the named accused on account of pre-existing enmity. Secondly, as per the deposition of PW-1, he himself took refuge at a distance of 50 feets from the place of occurrence and therefore, in all probability, he could not have seen the occurrence with clarity and precession. The deposition of PW-1 is contradictory regarding the legal status of the land on which, the tower was sought to be installed by the accused. PW-2 has been disbelieved by Court below on the ground that prima-facie he could not have sustained the injuries in the occurrence in question. Had PW-2 sustained the injuries as depicted in the radiological report, it is difficult to understand as to how he could come to the police station in an unconscious state with serious injuries, particularly, when the primary medico legal examination report of the injured PW-2 has not been produced before Court. Furthermore, the occurrence in question is alleged to have been witnessed by independent witnesses but no independent witness was adduced to prove the occurrence in question. PW-1 and PW-2 are interested witnesses being father and son yet in spite of above, no attempt was made by the prosecution to lead any independent witness to give weight to the prosecution case.

26. Much reliance was placed by the learned counsel for appellant upon the radiological report of the injured on the basis of which, it was strenuously urged before us that the medical evidence on record clearly proves the prosecution case and therefore, the accused respondents 2, 3 and 4 are liable to be convicted of the charges framed against them. The said argument has been raised only to be rejected. Section 45 of the Evidence Act deals with expert opinion. Accordingly, Section 45 of the Evidence Act is reproduced 10 NC413 No. 558 of 2025 herein under:- "45. Opinions of experts. When the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law, or of science or art, or as to identity of handwriting [or finger impressions] [Inserted by Act 5 of 1899, Section 3. For discussion in Council as to whether [finger impressions] include [thumb impressions,] see Gazette of India, 1898, Pt. VI, p.24.], the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, [or in questions as to identity of handwriting] [Inserted by Act 18 of 1871, Section 4.] [or finger-impressions] [Inserted by Act 5 of 1899, Section 3. For discussion in Council as to whether [Finger impressions] include [thumb impressions,] see Gazette of India, 1898, Pt.VI, p.24.] are relevant facts.Such persons are called experts.Illustrations (a)The questions is, whether the death of A was caused by poison. The opinions of experts as to the symptoms produced by the poison by which A is supposed to have died, are relevant. (b)the question is, whether A, at the time of doing a certain act, was, by reason of unsoundness of mind, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law. The opinions of experts upon the question whether the symptoms exhibited by A commonly show unsoundness of mind, and whether such unsoundness of mind usually renders persons incapable of knowing the nature of the acts which they do, or of knowing that what they do is either wrong or contrary to law, are relevant. (c)The question is, whether a certain document was written by A. Another document is produced which is proved or admitted to have been written by A. The opinions of experts on the question whether the two documents were written by the same person or by different persons, are relevant."

27. Admittedly, the radiological report was prepared by Dr. S. Lal, who did not depose before Court below. In the absence of the deposition of the author of the radiological report, which is basically an expert report, it cannot be said that the said report stands proved in accordance with law. We, therefore, 11 NC413 No. 558 of 2025 do not find any infirmity in the conclusion drawn by Court below in discarding the same. Reference be made to the judgment of Supreme Court Ramesh Chandra Agrawal Vs. Regency Hospital Limited and Others, (2009) 9 SCC 709, wherein it has been held that the expert is required to be adduced in evidence to prove his report. For ready reference, paragraphs 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the aforesaid report, which are relevant for the controversy in hand, are extracted herein under;- "16. The law of evidence is designed to ensure that the court considers only that evidence which will enable it to reach a reliable conclusion. The first and foremost requirement for an expert evidence to be admissible is that it is necessary to hear the expert evidence. The test is that the matter is outside the knowledge and experience of the layperson. Thus, there is a need to hear an expert opinion where there is a medical issue to be settled. The scientific question involved is assumed to be not within the court's knowledge. Thus cases where the science involved, is highly specialised and perhaps even esoteric, the central role of an expert cannot be disputed. The other requirements for the admissibility of expert evidence are: (i) that the expert must be within a recognised field of expertise, (ii) that the evidence must be based on reliable principles, and (iii) that the expert must be qualified in that discipline. (See Errors, Medicine and the Law, Alan Merry and Alexander McCall Smith, 2001 Edn., Cambridge University Press, p. 178.)

17. Section 45 of the Evidence Act, 1872 speaks of expert evidence. It reads as under: "45. Opinions of experts. When the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law, or of science, or art, or as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions, the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, or in questions as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions are relevant facts. a) The question is, whether the death of A was caused by poison. The opinions of experts as to the symptoms produced by the poison by which A is supposed to have died, are relevant. (b) The question is, whether A, at the time of doing a certain act, was, by reason of unsoundness of mind, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law. 12 NC413 No. 558 of 2025 The opinions of experts upon the question whether the symptoms exhibited by A commonly show unsoundness of mind, and whether such unsoundness of mind usually renders persons incapable of knowing the nature of the acts which they do, or of knowing that what they do is either wrong or contrary to law, are relevant. (c) The question is, whether a certain document was written by A. Another document is produced which is proved or admitted to have been written by A. The opinions of experts on the question whether the two documents were written by the same person or by different persons, are relevant."

18. The importance of the provision has been explained in State of H.P. v. Jai Lalf. It is held, that, Section 45 of the Evidence Act which makes opinion of experts admissible lays down, that, when the court has to form an opinion persons upon a point of foreign law, or of science, or art, or as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions, the opinions upon that point of pers specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, or in questions as to identity of handwriting, or finger impressions are relevant facts. Therefore, in order to bring the evidence of a witness as that of an expert it has to be shown that he has made a special study of the subject or acquired a special experience therein or in other words that he is skilled and has adequate knowledge of the subject.

19. It is not the province of the expert to act as Judge or Jury. It is stated in Titli v. Alfred Robert Jones³ that the real function of the expert is to put before the court all the materials, together with reasons which induce him to come to the conclusion, so that the court, although not an expert, may form its own judgment by its own observation of those materials.

20. An expert is not a witness of fact and his evidence is really of an advisory character. The duty of an expert witness is to furnish the Judge with the necessary scientific criteria for testing the accuracy of the conclusions so as to enable the Judge to form his independent judgment by the application of these criteria to the facts proved by the evidence of the case. The scientific opinion evidence, if intelligible, convincing and tested becomes a factor and often an important factor for consideration along with other evidence of the case. The credibility of such a witness depends on the reasons stated in support of his conclusions and the data and material furnished which form the basis of his conclusions. (See Malay Kumar Ganguly v. Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee, SCC p. 249, para 34.)

21. In State of Maharashtra v. Damut, it has been laid down that without examining the expert as a witness in court, no reliance can be placed on an opinion alone. In this regard, it has been observed in State (Delhi Admn.) v. Pali Ram that "no expert would claim today that he could be absolutely sure that his opinion was correct, expert depends to a great extent upon the materials put before him and the nature of 13 NC413 No. 558 of 2025 question put to him".

22. In the article "Relevancy of Expert's Opinion" it has been opined that the value of expert opinion rests on the facts on which it is based and his competency for forming a reliable opinion. The evidentiary value of the opinion of an expert depends on the facts upon which it is based and also the validity of the process by which the conclusion is reached. Thus the idea that is proposed in its crux means that the importance of an opinion is decided on the basis of the credibility of the expert and the relevant facts supporting the opinion so that its accuracy can be crosschecked. Therefore, the emphasis has been on the data on the basis of which opinion is formed. The same is clear from the following inference: "Mere assertion without mentioning the data or basis is not evidence, even if it comes from an expert, Where the experts give no real data in support of their opinion, the evidence even though admissible, may be excluded from consideration as affording no assistance in arriving at the correct value."

28. In view of the discussion made above, the inescapable conclusion is that Court below has not committed any illegality in passing the judgment of acquittal in favour of accused-opposite parties 2, 3 and 4. Court below has assigned cogent and valid reasons for disbelieving the prosecution case. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any perversity either as Court below has scrutinized the entire evidence on record. Learned counsel for appellant could not dislodge the reasons assigned by Court below for disbelieving the prosecution case. Even upon re-appraisal and re- appreciation of the evidence on record, we could not find any such evidence or fact to upset the impugned judgment passed by Court below.

29. As a result, the present appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed.

30. It is, accordingly, dismissed. October 7, 2025 Arshad Ajay Kumar-II,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.) ARSHAD MAHMOOD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad