Anil Kumar and another v. The State of U.P and Ors. Court No

fire from his licensed double-barreled firearm resulting in multiple pellet injuries to Abhay Singh Verma's left shoulder and neck. Accused Ram Kewal Verma also fired from his weapon, though no injury was sustained. The incident was witnessed by several villagers and relatives present at the scene. iii). Following the occurrence, Anil Kumar lodged a written complaint at Police Station Akbarpur, which was registered as FIR No.278/01 under Sections 307, 323, 504, and 506 of the Indian 3 A378 No. 132 of 2012 Penal Code. The investigation was conducted by the investigating Officer, who prepared the site map (Exhibit A-3) and charge sheet (Exhibit A-4), duly authenticated by official signatures. iv). The prosecution in order to bring home the charges against the accused/ respondents examined six prosecution witnesses, namely Anil Kumar (P.W.-1), Abhay Singh (P.W.-2), Ramjeet Verma (P.W.-3), Dr. Shashi Kant (P.W.-4), Sub Inspector Paras Nath Pandey, I.O. (P.W.-5) and Dr. A.K.Srivastava, Radiologist (P.W.-6). v). Medical examination of the injured, conducted at the District Hospital, Akbarpur, revealed three deep, bleeding wounds on the left shoulder and neck, consistent with firearm injuries. X-ray plates (Exhibits 1-3) and the corresponding report (Exhibit A-7) were prepared and proved by the medical officer. vi). Upon medical examination of the injured, the following injuries were noted :

1. A sunken wound measuring 4 cm x 4 cm was present on the front side of the left shoulder joint, extending deep to the flesh, and bleeding profusely.

2. A sunken wound measuring 4 cm x 4 cm was present 7 cm below injury no.1, extending deep to the flesh, and bleeding profusely. Therefore, an X-ray of the left shoulder joint was advised.

3. A sunken wound measuring 4 cm x 4 cm, located on the left side of the neck, 8 cm below the left ear, was bleeding to a depth of 4 cm. No carbon particles were found around the wound. An X-ray was recommended. The investigators determined that all the wounds were simple, but the patient was kept under observation. vii). The evidence on record, comprising eyewitness testimony, medical documentation, and police investigation, establishes that 4 A378 No. 132 of 2012 the injuries sustained by Abhay Singh Verma were caused by firearm the accused Phoolchand Verma, with corroboration of threats and abusive conduct by the other accused persons. viii). In the statement under Section 313 CrPC, accused persons stated that the complainant lodged a false FIR out of enmity, because a case under Section 302 IPC was pending against the complainant Anil Kumar and others in which Phool Chand and Ram Kewal were their Advocates. Due to the Advocate's inability to facilitate, compromise could not be effected, and in that Sessions Trial, Anil Kumar and his two brothers were sentenced to life imprisonment. It was further stated by the accused Ram Kewal that no licensed firearm stands in his name. ix). The trial court only convicted Phoolchand u/s 324 of the IPC and acquitted the other accused, as no specific role of each accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

5. Now before appreciating the findings of the trial Court while acquitting the accused/respondents by means of the impugned judgment and order dated 02.06.2012, we deem it apt to mention herein that in State of Rajasthan Vs. Shera Ram alias Vishnu Dutta, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 602, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that though there is no substantial difference between an appeal against conviction and an appeal against acquittal, however, what is to be borne in mind while dealing with an appeal against acquittal is that the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused has been fortified by his acquittal and if the view adopted by the trial Court is a reasonable one and the conclusion reached by it is based on the material on record, the acquittal may not be interfered with. In this case, Hon'ble Supreme Court has 5 A378 No. 132 of 2012 also observed that though there is no absolute restriction to re-look the entire evidence on which the order of acquittal is based, however, it is only if the appellate Court finds that the decision of the trial Court is based on an erroneous view and is against the settled principles of law, only then the order of acquittal should be set aside. Paragraphs 10 and 11 of the judgment in the case of Shera Ram (supra) are relevant, which are extracted herein below :- "10. There is a very thin but a fine distinction between an appeal against conviction on the one hand and acquittal on the other. The preponderance of judicial opinion of this Court is that there is no substantial difference between an appeal against conviction and an appeal against acquittal except that while dealing with an appeal against acquittal the Court keeps in view the position that the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused has been fortified by his acquittal and if the view adopted by the High Court is a reasonable one and the conclusion reached by it had its grounds well set out on the materials on record, the acquittal may not be interfered with. Thus, this fine distinction has to be kept in mind by the Court while exercising its appellate jurisdiction. The golden rule is that the Court is obliged and it will not abjure its duty to prevent miscarriage of justice, where interference is imperative and the ends of justice so require and it is essential to appease the judicial conscience.

11. Also, this Court in Abdul Mannan case had the occasion to state the principles which may be taken into consideration by the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against acquittal. There is no absolute restriction in law to review and re-look the entire evidence on which the order of acquittal is founded. If, upon scrutiny, the appellate court finds that the lower court's decision is based on erroneous views and against the settled position of law then the said order of acquittal should be set aside".

6. In Shyam Babu Vs. State of U.P. : (2012) 8 SCC 651, Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated the principles on which the Appellate Court may interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the trial court. Hon'ble Supreme Court has stated in Shyam Babu (supra) that the Appellate Court while entertaining the appeal against the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court is though entitled 6 A378 No. 132 of 2012 to re-appreciate the evidence and come to an independent conclusion, however, 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. Para- 16 of Shyam Babu (supra) is relevant, which is reproduced herein below:- "16. It is true that it would not be possible for the appellate Court to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court without rendering specific finding, namely, that the decision of the trial Court is perverse or unreasonable resulting in miscarriage of justice. At the same time, it cannot be denied that the appellate Court while entertaining an appeal against the judgment of acquittal by the trial Court is entitled to re-appreciate the evidence and come to an independent conclusion. We are conscious of the fact that in doing so, the appellate Court should consider every material on record and the reasons given by the trial Court in support of its order of acquittal and should interfere only on being satisfied that the view taken by the trial Court is perverse and unreasonable, resulting in miscarriage of justice. We also reiterate that if two views are possible on a set of evidence, then the appellate Court need not substitute its own view in preference to the view of the trial Court which has recorded an order of acquittal."

7. Keeping in view the aforesaid principles of law enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding the scope and ambit of this Court in an appeal filed against the judgment of acquittal, we now proceed to examine whether the prayer made by the State in this case for grant of leave to appeal can be granted. Such grant of leave will be permissible only if the judgment of acquittal or lesser offence in this case is found suffering from any manifest legal infirmity or is found based on erroneous appreciation of evidence.

8. We have considered the submissions advanced by learned AGA appearing for the State and gone through the records.

9. The trial court only convicted Phool Chand under Section 324 7 A378 No. 132 of 2012 IPC, not in section 307 IPC, and acquitted the other accused. As the injury is of a simple nature and before this fight, there was no fight regarding the disputed land, as stated by Anil Kumar (P.W.1), and no repeated firing is established by the prosecution, as PW-2 says both accused had guns. PW-3 says one had a gun, and the other held a tarpaulin. PW-1 says both fired. So this is a major contradiction regarding repeated firing by the accused, also absence of blackening or tattooing on wound, which would normally be expected in close-range firing.

10. As regards the other accused, however, the prosecution's evidence is weak and inconsistent. The allegation against Ram Kewal of firing a second shot is not corroborated by other prosecution evidence. PW-2 and PW-3 allege that bricks and stones were thrown, yet PW-1 does not emphasize this aspect, and the medical officer found no injuries attributable by stone or bricks-throwing. The investigating officer (PW-5) also failed to recover any material evidence, such as stones or marks of assault. To substantiate these allegations and also finding various discrepancies in the statement of the prosecution witnesses, the learned Trial Court has given a finding that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charges against other accused beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, acquitted respondents no. 3 to 5 of the charges for which the respondent/accused persons were tried giving them benefit of doubt. In addition thereto, this Court finds that the requisite ingredients for Section 504/506 I.P.C. are not made out in the present case as the evidence on record does not depict that specific abusive words, threats and criminal intimidation were made.

11. Furthermore, the accused had intention to kill 8 A378 No. 132 of 2012 complainant, they had sufficient opportunity and adequate means to do so. As per the prosecution witnesses themselves, the accused were carrying guns, injuries caused by bricks or stones could also have proved fatal. However, neither the complainant nor any of his companion sustained any injury from bricks or stones, and even the firearm injury caused was only simple in nature. This clearly establishes that the accused had no intention to kill the appellant/ complainant or any other members of his family.

12. Even otherwise on perusal of the judgement of the trial court, this Court finds no perversity or illegality in findings recorded by Sessions Judge. The evidence of the prosecution suffered from material contradiction and did not support charge under Section 307 I.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge has assigned cogent reason for convicting only accused Phoolchand under Section 324 I.P.C. and acquitted the remaining accused persons.

13. The scope of interference in the order of acquittal is narrow and unless the findings of the trial court are wholly unreasonable, perverse or contrary to the record, leave to appeal is not liable to be granted.

14. In the light of the discussions made above, what we find is that in the instant case the view taken by the learned trial Court for acquitting the accused except Phoolchand was a possible and plausible view on the basis of analysis of evidence available on record and further, we do not find any perversity in the findings recorded by the learned trial Court.

15. Accordingly, the application filed on behalf of State/applicant seeking to appeal is hereby rejected. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. 9 A378 No. 132 of 2012

16. In view of the above, the Criminal Appeal No. 930 of 2012 filed by the complainant is also dismissed. November 19, 2025 Shravan (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajnish Kumar,J.) SHRAVAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

fire from his licensed double-barreled firearm resulting in multiple pellet injuries to Abhay Singh Verma's left shoulder and neck. Accused Ram Kewal Verma also fired from his weapon, though no injury was sustained. The incident was witnessed by several villagers and relatives present at the scene. iii). Following the occurrence, Anil Kumar lodged a written complaint at Police Station Akbarpur, which was registered as FIR No.278/01 under Sections 307, 323, 504, and 506 of the Indian 3 A378 No. 132 of 2012 Penal Code. The investigation was conducted by the investigating Officer, who prepared the site map (Exhibit A-3) and charge sheet (Exhibit A-4), duly authenticated by official signatures. iv). The prosecution in order to bring home the charges against the accused/ respondents examined six prosecution witnesses, namely Anil Kumar (P.W.-1), Abhay Singh (P.W.-2), Ramjeet Verma (P.W.-3), Dr. Shashi Kant (P.W.-4), Sub Inspector Paras Nath Pandey, I.O. (P.W.-5) and Dr. A.K.Srivastava, Radiologist (P.W.-6). v). Medical examination of the injured, conducted at the District Hospital, Akbarpur, revealed three deep, bleeding wounds on the left shoulder and neck, consistent with firearm injuries. X-ray plates (Exhibits 1-3) and the corresponding report (Exhibit A-7) were prepared and proved by the medical officer. vi). Upon medical examination of the injured, the following injuries were noted :

1. A sunken wound measuring 4 cm x 4 cm was present on the front side of the left shoulder joint, extending deep to the flesh, and bleeding profusely.

2. A sunken wound measuring 4 cm x 4 cm was present 7 cm below injury no.1, extending deep to the flesh, and bleeding profusely. Therefore, an X-ray of the left shoulder joint was advised.

3. A sunken wound measuring 4 cm x 4 cm, located on the left side of the neck, 8 cm below the left ear, was bleeding to a depth of 4 cm. No carbon particles were found around the wound. An X-ray was recommended. The investigators determined that all the wounds were simple, but the patient was kept under observation. vii). The evidence on record, comprising eyewitness testimony, medical documentation, and police investigation, establishes that 4 A378 No. 132 of 2012 the injuries sustained by Abhay Singh Verma were caused by firearm the accused Phoolchand Verma, with corroboration of threats and abusive conduct by the other accused persons. viii). In the statement under Section 313 CrPC, accused persons stated that the complainant lodged a false FIR out of enmity, because a case under Section 302 IPC was pending against the complainant Anil Kumar and others in which Phool Chand and Ram Kewal were their Advocates. Due to the Advocate's inability to facilitate, compromise could not be effected, and in that Sessions Trial, Anil Kumar and his two brothers were sentenced to life imprisonment. It was further stated by the accused Ram Kewal that no licensed firearm stands in his name. ix). The trial court only convicted Phoolchand u/s 324 of the IPC and acquitted the other accused, as no specific role of each accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

5. Now before appreciating the findings of the trial Court while acquitting the accused/respondents by means of the impugned judgment and order dated 02.06.2012, we deem it apt to mention herein that in State of Rajasthan Vs. Shera Ram alias Vishnu Dutta, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 602, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that though there is no substantial difference between an appeal against conviction and an appeal against acquittal, however, what is to be borne in mind while dealing with an appeal against acquittal is that the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused has been fortified by his acquittal and if the view adopted by the trial Court is a reasonable one and the conclusion reached by it is based on the material on record, the acquittal may not be interfered with. In this case, Hon'ble Supreme Court has 5 A378 No. 132 of 2012 also observed that though there is no absolute restriction to re-look the entire evidence on which the order of acquittal is based, however, it is only if the appellate Court finds that the decision of the trial Court is based on an erroneous view and is against the settled principles of law, only then the order of acquittal should be set aside. Paragraphs 10 and 11 of the judgment in the case of Shera Ram (supra) are relevant, which are extracted herein below :- "10. There is a very thin but a fine distinction between an appeal against conviction on the one hand and acquittal on the other. The preponderance of judicial opinion of this Court is that there is no substantial difference between an appeal against conviction and an appeal against acquittal except that while dealing with an appeal against acquittal the Court keeps in view the position that the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused has been fortified by his acquittal and if the view adopted by the High Court is a reasonable one and the conclusion reached by it had its grounds well set out on the materials on record, the acquittal may not be interfered with. Thus, this fine distinction has to be kept in mind by the Court while exercising its appellate jurisdiction. The golden rule is that the Court is obliged and it will not abjure its duty to prevent miscarriage of justice, where interference is imperative and the ends of justice so require and it is essential to appease the judicial conscience.

11. Also, this Court in Abdul Mannan case had the occasion to state the principles which may be taken into consideration by the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against acquittal. There is no absolute restriction in law to review and re-look the entire evidence on which the order of acquittal is founded. If, upon scrutiny, the appellate court finds that the lower court's decision is based on erroneous views and against the settled position of law then the said order of acquittal should be set aside".

6. In Shyam Babu Vs. State of U.P. : (2012) 8 SCC 651, Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated the principles on which the Appellate Court may interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the trial court. Hon'ble Supreme Court has stated in Shyam Babu (supra) that the Appellate Court while entertaining the appeal against the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court is though entitled 6 A378 No. 132 of 2012 to re-appreciate the evidence and come to an independent conclusion, however, 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. Para- 16 of Shyam Babu (supra) is relevant, which is reproduced herein below:- "16. It is true that it would not be possible for the appellate Court to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court without rendering specific finding, namely, that the decision of the trial Court is perverse or unreasonable resulting in miscarriage of justice. At the same time, it cannot be denied that the appellate Court while entertaining an appeal against the judgment of acquittal by the trial Court is entitled to re-appreciate the evidence and come to an independent conclusion. We are conscious of the fact that in doing so, the appellate Court should consider every material on record and the reasons given by the trial Court in support of its order of acquittal and should interfere only on being satisfied that the view taken by the trial Court is perverse and unreasonable, resulting in miscarriage of justice. We also reiterate that if two views are possible on a set of evidence, then the appellate Court need not substitute its own view in preference to the view of the trial Court which has recorded an order of acquittal."

7. Keeping in view the aforesaid principles of law enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding the scope and ambit of this Court in an appeal filed against the judgment of acquittal, we now proceed to examine whether the prayer made by the State in this case for grant of leave to appeal can be granted. Such grant of leave will be permissible only if the judgment of acquittal or lesser offence in this case is found suffering from any manifest legal infirmity or is found based on erroneous appreciation of evidence.

8. We have considered the submissions advanced by learned AGA appearing for the State and gone through the records.

9. The trial court only convicted Phool Chand under Section 324 7 A378 No. 132 of 2012 IPC, not in section 307 IPC, and acquitted the other accused. As the injury is of a simple nature and before this fight, there was no fight regarding the disputed land, as stated by Anil Kumar (P.W.1), and no repeated firing is established by the prosecution, as PW-2 says both accused had guns. PW-3 says one had a gun, and the other held a tarpaulin. PW-1 says both fired. So this is a major contradiction regarding repeated firing by the accused, also absence of blackening or tattooing on wound, which would normally be expected in close-range firing.

10. As regards the other accused, however, the prosecution's evidence is weak and inconsistent. The allegation against Ram Kewal of firing a second shot is not corroborated by other prosecution evidence. PW-2 and PW-3 allege that bricks and stones were thrown, yet PW-1 does not emphasize this aspect, and the medical officer found no injuries attributable by stone or bricks-throwing. The investigating officer (PW-5) also failed to recover any material evidence, such as stones or marks of assault. To substantiate these allegations and also finding various discrepancies in the statement of the prosecution witnesses, the learned Trial Court has given a finding that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charges against other accused beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, acquitted respondents no. 3 to 5 of the charges for which the respondent/accused persons were tried giving them benefit of doubt. In addition thereto, this Court finds that the requisite ingredients for Section 504/506 I.P.C. are not made out in the present case as the evidence on record does not depict that specific abusive words, threats and criminal intimidation were made.

11. Furthermore, the accused had intention to kill 8 A378 No. 132 of 2012 complainant, they had sufficient opportunity and adequate means to do so. As per the prosecution witnesses themselves, the accused were carrying guns, injuries caused by bricks or stones could also have proved fatal. However, neither the complainant nor any of his companion sustained any injury from bricks or stones, and even the firearm injury caused was only simple in nature. This clearly establishes that the accused had no intention to kill the appellant/ complainant or any other members of his family.

12. Even otherwise on perusal of the judgement of the trial court, this Court finds no perversity or illegality in findings recorded by Sessions Judge. The evidence of the prosecution suffered from material contradiction and did not support charge under Section 307 I.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge has assigned cogent reason for convicting only accused Phoolchand under Section 324 I.P.C. and acquitted the remaining accused persons.

13. The scope of interference in the order of acquittal is narrow and unless the findings of the trial court are wholly unreasonable, perverse or contrary to the record, leave to appeal is not liable to be granted.

14. In the light of the discussions made above, what we find is that in the instant case the view taken by the learned trial Court for acquitting the accused except Phoolchand was a possible and plausible view on the basis of analysis of evidence available on record and further, we do not find any perversity in the findings recorded by the learned trial Court.

15. Accordingly, the application filed on behalf of State/applicant seeking to appeal is hereby rejected. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. 9 A378 No. 132 of 2012

16. In view of the above, the Criminal Appeal No. 930 of 2012 filed by the complainant is also dismissed. November 19, 2025 Shravan (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajnish Kumar,J.) SHRAVAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench