Chheydi Lal And Ors. vs Party(s)

3. The prosecution case, as reflected from the trial court record, is that on 04.05.2002 at about 8:00 AM, the complainant Barsati Lal was assaulted near his shop situated at Thathrahi Bazar (market), Karnailganj. The accused persons, armed with swords, spears, and sticks, allegedly attacked the complainant 2 A378 No. 142 of 2010 and his family members, including his mother and son, causing simple injuries. The first information report was lodged vide, Case Crime No.190 of 2002, under Sections 323, 324 and 307 I.P.C at Police Station Karnailganj, District Gonda.

4. The learned trial court, upon appreciation of the evidences and statements, convicted the accused under Sections 323/34 and 324/34 IPC, while acquitting them of charges under Section 307 IPC due to insufficient prove for intention to kill.

5. The prosecution examined six witnesses in support of its case including PW-1 Barsati Lal (complainant), PW-2 Bharat Lal alias Rinku, PW-3 Shanti Devi (mother of complainant), PW-4 Dr. Madan Lal (Medical Officer), PW-5 Suresh Chandra (Constable) and PW-6 Rammurti Verma (Sub Inspector).

6. PW-1 Barsati Lal, deposed that on the morning of the

04.05.2002 at around 8:00 A.M., he and his brother went to their utensil shop situated at Thatharahi Market, Karnailganj, District Gonnda. Upon arrival, he observed that the accused Chedilal was throwing garbage from his house in front of their shop. Barsati Lal requested Chedilal to stop this act, which he refused. Thereupon, accused Arvindra Kumar approached from behind with a sword, Chedilal armed with a spear, and Santosh Kumar with a stick. All four accused violently assaulted the complainant. Arvindra Kumar inflicted a deep and bleeding wound on Barsati Lal's head, Chedilal stabbed his right hand with the spear, and Santosh Kumar struck his back with the stick. The complainant fell on the ground and cried for help. On hearing the cries, his mother, brother and son Rinku rushed to save him. During this scuffle, Arvindra Kumar also attacked complainant’s mother with a sword causing severe injuries to her, and Rinku also sustained injuries in the assault. The complainant submitted a written application at the police station on the same day, on the basis 3 A378 No. 142 of 2010 of which a chik F.I.R. was lodged.

7. PW-2 Bharat Lal alias Rinku, son of the complainant Barsati Lal, deposed before the trial court that he was present at the place of the incident when the assault took place. He saw the accused approaching armed with weapons like swords, spears, and sticks. He confirmed that his father and grandmother were injured in the attack and attributed the assault to the accused persons.

8. PW-3 Shanti Devi, deposed that on hearing the noise she came running to the spot and was attacked with a sword, sustaining an injury on her hand. She also described the attack on her son and grandson.

9. PW-4 Dr. Madan Lal, Medical Officer, proved the injury reports of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3. He stated that the injuries were fresh, consistent with sharp and blunt weapons, and were simple in nature. The injury report (Ext Ka-2) reflected incised wounds, stab wounds, lacerated wounds and abrasions consistent with the manner of assault.

1. Injury report of Barsati Lal, PW-1, reads as under: - Injury No. 1- An incised wound measuring 6.0 cm x

0.3 cm, scalp deep, on the left side of skull, situated 12 cm above upper edge of the right ear. Margins were clean and clotted blood was present. Injury No. 2- A linear abrasion 17 cm x 0.2 cm on the left side of the back, 9.5 cm below the scalp level. Margins were sharp. Injury No. 3- A stab wound 1.5 cm x 0.3 cm, muscle 4 A378 No. 142 of 2010 deep, on the right upper arm, above 3.5 cm above the right elbow. Injury No. 4- An incised wound 2.5 cm x 0.3 cm, muscle deep, 11 cm on left index finger's tip with clotted blood present. Injury No. 5- Abrasion 3 cm x 0.1 cm on the tip of the small finger of the left hand.

2. Injury report of Bharat Lal alias Rinku, PW-2, reads as under: - Injury No. 1- A lacerated wound on the left side of skull measuring 2.5 cm x 0.5 cm. x muscle deep, located above from upper part of the left ear. Clotted blood was present. Injury No. 2-An abrasion 1.5 cm x 1 cm on the palm of the left hand. Injury No. 3- An Abrasion 3.5 cm x 0.5 cm on the inner side of the upper left arm, 5.5 cm above the left elbow. Colour of the injury was red.

3. Injury report of Shanti Devi, PW-3, reads as under: - Injury No. 1- A lacerated wound 5.0 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep on the back of the left hand, 8 cm above the ring finger of left hand with fresh oozing blood. Injury No. 2- A bluish contusion on the tip of left shoulder, red in colour, measuring 3 cm x 1 cm. All the wounds were said to be fresh, simple and may have caused at the same time as alleged in the 5 incident. A378 No. 142 of 2010

10. The medical evidence confirmed the nature of the injuries as simple and non-fatal. The prosecution also relied upon the FIR (Ext Ka-5), site plan (Ext Ka-7) and recovery memo (Ext Ka-8), which corroborated the testimonies.

11. PW-5 Suresh Chandra, Constable, deposed that upon receiving the complaint, he registered the FIR and made corresponding entries in the General Diary, marked as Ext. Ka- 5 and Ext. Ka-6.

12. PW-6 Rammurti Verma, Investigating Officer, supported the evidence of PW-5. He stated that he recorded the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., visited the scene, prepared the site plan, and after finding sufficient evidence, submitted the charge-sheet (Ext. Ka-9).

13. We have also gone through the testimonies and other evidences on record and analysed the same.

14. We find that the learned Sessions Judge upon careful scrutiny of medical as well as ocular evidence, found the prosecution witnesses reliable and consistent. The prosecution succeeded in proving the charges only under Sections 323 and 324 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. However, the learned trial court found that the prosecution failed to demonstrate intent to cause death, which is required for convictions under Section 307 IPC. Consequently, respondents/accused were acquitted of the charges under Section 307 IPC.

15. Learned A.G.A. contends that the acquittal for Section 307 IPC is unsustainable and argues that the nature of the injuries 6 A378 No. 142 of 2010 and manner of assault indicate clear intention to kill. It is also urged that the sentence awarded is unduly lenient.

16. Having considered the submissions and perused the record, we find that the prosecution has established the assault and injuries punishable under Sections 323 and 324 I.P.C. The ocular testimony, supported by medical evidence, forms a coherent narrative. However, the injuries, though caused by sharp-edged weapons, are simple in nature and not such as would ordinarily cause death, and therefore the prosecution failed to discharge the burden of proving intention to kill under Section 307 I.P.C.

17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Guru Dutt Pathak v. State of U.P, (2021) 6 SCC 116, has held that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court and if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.

18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shyam Babu v. State of U.P. (2012) 8 SCC 651, has reiterated the principles on which the Appellate Court may interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the trial court, that the Appellate Court while entertaining the appeal against the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court is though entitled to re-appreciate the evidence and come to an independent conclusion, however, 7 A378 No. 142 of 2010 such interference with the order of acquittal should not be made unless the decision of the trial Court is found perverse or unreasonable resulting in miscarriage of justice.

19. This Court further notes that the consistent testimonies of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, duly corroborated by the medical evidence, leave no manner of doubt regarding the occurrence of assault; however, the nature of injuries, being simple, supports the conclusion of the learned trial court that Section 307 IPC is not attracted. In fact, for application of Section 307 IPC the nature of injuries and intention of the accused are some of the most relevant factors which must be considered. In the present case P.W.-4, Dr. Madanlal, clearly stated in his statement that injuries were not of such nature which may be termed as dangerous to life. Moreover, upon consideration of the evidences and material available on record, the intention to kill cannot be inferred on the part of the respondents.

20. The view taken by the learned trial court that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of Section 307 I.P.C is not only a possible view but is the only plausible view on the evidence available.

21. No perversity, illegality or manifest error is found in the impugned judgment in so far as the acquittal under Section 307 I.P.C. is concerned.

22. The application for to appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the Government Appeal is found to be devoid of merit and is hereby stands dismissed. November 7, 2025 Shahnaz (Zafeer Ahmad,J.) (Rajnish Kumar,J.) SHAHNAZ BANO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

3. The prosecution case, as reflected from the trial court record, is that on 04.05.2002 at about 8:00 AM, the complainant Barsati Lal was assaulted near his shop situated at Thathrahi Bazar (market), Karnailganj. The accused persons, armed with swords, spears, and sticks, allegedly attacked the complainant 2 A378 No. 142 of 2010 and his family members, including his mother and son, causing simple injuries. The first information report was lodged vide, Case Crime No.190 of 2002, under Sections 323, 324 and 307 I.P.C at Police Station Karnailganj, District Gonda.

4. The learned trial court, upon appreciation of the evidences and statements, convicted the accused under Sections 323/34 and 324/34 IPC, while acquitting them of charges under Section 307 IPC due to insufficient prove for intention to kill.

5. The prosecution examined six witnesses in support of its case including PW-1 Barsati Lal (complainant), PW-2 Bharat Lal alias Rinku, PW-3 Shanti Devi (mother of complainant), PW-4 Dr. Madan Lal (Medical Officer), PW-5 Suresh Chandra (Constable) and PW-6 Rammurti Verma (Sub Inspector).

6. PW-1 Barsati Lal, deposed that on the morning of the

04.05.2002 at around 8:00 A.M., he and his brother went to their utensil shop situated at Thatharahi Market, Karnailganj, District Gonnda. Upon arrival, he observed that the accused Chedilal was throwing garbage from his house in front of their shop. Barsati Lal requested Chedilal to stop this act, which he refused. Thereupon, accused Arvindra Kumar approached from behind with a sword, Chedilal armed with a spear, and Santosh Kumar with a stick. All four accused violently assaulted the complainant. Arvindra Kumar inflicted a deep and bleeding wound on Barsati Lal's head, Chedilal stabbed his right hand with the spear, and Santosh Kumar struck his back with the stick. The complainant fell on the ground and cried for help. On hearing the cries, his mother, brother and son Rinku rushed to save him. During this scuffle, Arvindra Kumar also attacked complainant’s mother with a sword causing severe injuries to her, and Rinku also sustained injuries in the assault. The complainant submitted a written application at the police station on the same day, on the basis 3 A378 No. 142 of 2010 of which a chik F.I.R. was lodged.

7. PW-2 Bharat Lal alias Rinku, son of the complainant Barsati Lal, deposed before the trial court that he was present at the place of the incident when the assault took place. He saw the accused approaching armed with weapons like swords, spears, and sticks. He confirmed that his father and grandmother were injured in the attack and attributed the assault to the accused persons.

8. PW-3 Shanti Devi, deposed that on hearing the noise she came running to the spot and was attacked with a sword, sustaining an injury on her hand. She also described the attack on her son and grandson.

9. PW-4 Dr. Madan Lal, Medical Officer, proved the injury reports of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3. He stated that the injuries were fresh, consistent with sharp and blunt weapons, and were simple in nature. The injury report (Ext Ka-2) reflected incised wounds, stab wounds, lacerated wounds and abrasions consistent with the manner of assault.

1. Injury report of Barsati Lal, PW-1, reads as under: - Injury No. 1- An incised wound measuring 6.0 cm x

0.3 cm, scalp deep, on the left side of skull, situated 12 cm above upper edge of the right ear. Margins were clean and clotted blood was present. Injury No. 2- A linear abrasion 17 cm x 0.2 cm on the left side of the back, 9.5 cm below the scalp level. Margins were sharp. Injury No. 3- A stab wound 1.5 cm x 0.3 cm, muscle 4 A378 No. 142 of 2010 deep, on the right upper arm, above 3.5 cm above the right elbow. Injury No. 4- An incised wound 2.5 cm x 0.3 cm, muscle deep, 11 cm on left index finger's tip with clotted blood present. Injury No. 5- Abrasion 3 cm x 0.1 cm on the tip of the small finger of the left hand.

2. Injury report of Bharat Lal alias Rinku, PW-2, reads as under: - Injury No. 1- A lacerated wound on the left side of skull measuring 2.5 cm x 0.5 cm. x muscle deep, located above from upper part of the left ear. Clotted blood was present. Injury No. 2-An abrasion 1.5 cm x 1 cm on the palm of the left hand. Injury No. 3- An Abrasion 3.5 cm x 0.5 cm on the inner side of the upper left arm, 5.5 cm above the left elbow. Colour of the injury was red.

3. Injury report of Shanti Devi, PW-3, reads as under: - Injury No. 1- A lacerated wound 5.0 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep on the back of the left hand, 8 cm above the ring finger of left hand with fresh oozing blood. Injury No. 2- A bluish contusion on the tip of left shoulder, red in colour, measuring 3 cm x 1 cm. All the wounds were said to be fresh, simple and may have caused at the same time as alleged in the 5 incident. A378 No. 142 of 2010

10. The medical evidence confirmed the nature of the injuries as simple and non-fatal. The prosecution also relied upon the FIR (Ext Ka-5), site plan (Ext Ka-7) and recovery memo (Ext Ka-8), which corroborated the testimonies.

11. PW-5 Suresh Chandra, Constable, deposed that upon receiving the complaint, he registered the FIR and made corresponding entries in the General Diary, marked as Ext. Ka- 5 and Ext. Ka-6.

12. PW-6 Rammurti Verma, Investigating Officer, supported the evidence of PW-5. He stated that he recorded the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., visited the scene, prepared the site plan, and after finding sufficient evidence, submitted the charge-sheet (Ext. Ka-9).

13. We have also gone through the testimonies and other evidences on record and analysed the same.

14. We find that the learned Sessions Judge upon careful scrutiny of medical as well as ocular evidence, found the prosecution witnesses reliable and consistent. The prosecution succeeded in proving the charges only under Sections 323 and 324 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. However, the learned trial court found that the prosecution failed to demonstrate intent to cause death, which is required for convictions under Section 307 IPC. Consequently, respondents/accused were acquitted of the charges under Section 307 IPC.

15. Learned A.G.A. contends that the acquittal for Section 307 IPC is unsustainable and argues that the nature of the injuries 6 A378 No. 142 of 2010 and manner of assault indicate clear intention to kill. It is also urged that the sentence awarded is unduly lenient.

16. Having considered the submissions and perused the record, we find that the prosecution has established the assault and injuries punishable under Sections 323 and 324 I.P.C. The ocular testimony, supported by medical evidence, forms a coherent narrative. However, the injuries, though caused by sharp-edged weapons, are simple in nature and not such as would ordinarily cause death, and therefore the prosecution failed to discharge the burden of proving intention to kill under Section 307 I.P.C.

17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Guru Dutt Pathak v. State of U.P, (2021) 6 SCC 116, has held that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court and if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.

18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shyam Babu v. State of U.P. (2012) 8 SCC 651, has reiterated the principles on which the Appellate Court may interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the trial court, that the Appellate Court while entertaining the appeal against the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court is though entitled to re-appreciate the evidence and come to an independent conclusion, however, 7 A378 No. 142 of 2010 such interference with the order of acquittal should not be made unless the decision of the trial Court is found perverse or unreasonable resulting in miscarriage of justice.

19. This Court further notes that the consistent testimonies of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, duly corroborated by the medical evidence, leave no manner of doubt regarding the occurrence of assault; however, the nature of injuries, being simple, supports the conclusion of the learned trial court that Section 307 IPC is not attracted. In fact, for application of Section 307 IPC the nature of injuries and intention of the accused are some of the most relevant factors which must be considered. In the present case P.W.-4, Dr. Madanlal, clearly stated in his statement that injuries were not of such nature which may be termed as dangerous to life. Moreover, upon consideration of the evidences and material available on record, the intention to kill cannot be inferred on the part of the respondents.

20. The view taken by the learned trial court that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of Section 307 I.P.C is not only a possible view but is the only plausible view on the evidence available.

21. No perversity, illegality or manifest error is found in the impugned judgment in so far as the acquittal under Section 307 I.P.C. is concerned.

22. The application for to appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the Government Appeal is found to be devoid of merit and is hereby stands dismissed. November 7, 2025 Shahnaz (Zafeer Ahmad,J.) (Rajnish Kumar,J.) SHAHNAZ BANO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench