State of U.P. vs Counsel for Applicant(s)

3. It is argued that the trial court considered the evidence of injured witness only against one accused and not against all the accused persons, therefore, the trial court has committed manifest error of law. The judgement and order dated 10.9.2009 has been passed against the settled principle of law and facts.

4. Further submission is that the ocular evidence was squarely corroborated by medical evidence albeit the trial court extended the benefit of doubt to the respondents and convicted only one accused Chheddu Singh, therefore, the appellant may be granted the leave to appeal as the appeal deserves to be admitted and the impugned judgement and order deserves to be set aside.

5. We have heard learned AGA for the appellant-State at length and perused the material on record.

6. Before coming to merit, it would be apt to have a glance over the prosecution story.

7. Initially, a Non-Cognizable Report (NCR) was lodged by the 2 A378 No. 398 of 2009 complainant Ram Pal against Chheddu, Khelavan, Birju and Madan alleging that the accused persons had uprooted his pegs which were fixed in the Sehan and when he objected, they assaulted him by lathi- dandas and abused and when his wife tried to protect him, she was also assaulted. Subsequently on the basis of medical report, x-ray report and x-ray plates, the case was altered to Section 307 IPC and the case was registered on Case Crime No. 203 of 2000 under Sections 307, 323, 324 IPC. The investigating officer, SI Sri Krishna Gopal recorded the statement of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C., inspected the place of occurrence, prepared site-plan and analyzed the injury report, x-ray report and x-ray plate. After concluding the investigation, he submitted charge sheet against three accused persons, the respondents herein and Chheddu Singh.

8. After compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C., the ACJM, Court No. 3, Kheri committed the case to the court of sessions, being exclusively triable by it. Thereafter the case was assigned to the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Kheri. The accused persons appeared before the trial court and the court framed charges under Section 307/34 and 323/34 IPC on 14.10.2003 whereupon the accused- respondents pleaded 'not guilty' and pleaded for trial.

9. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 Urmila Devi, the injured witness and wife of complainant, Ram Pal. Sunil, the eye witness, was examined as PW-2, Dr. P.K. Gangwar who conducted medical examination of the victim and injured persons and also conducted x-ray test and prepared report thereof as PW-3 and Sub-Inspector Krishna Gopal Tripathi who had investigated the case and submitted charge sheet against the accused persons was examined as PW-4.

10. It is also noteworthy here that the complainant Ram Pal, who also sustained injuries in the incident and lodged the NCR against Chheddu, Khelawan @ Ram Khelawan and Birju, the accused- respondents herein, could not be examined in the trial court as he died before the commencement of trial.

11. After completion of the prosecution evidence, statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which the accused persons denied the prosecution version and pleaded not guilty but no evidence, either documentary or oral, was produced by the accused persons in defence. Accused-respondent no. 2 Birju in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. stated that complainant's relative Sudarshan assaulted him and his mother about 30 years ago for which a case was registered. The police also created a cross case which ultimately culminated into acquittal. Since then complainant bore a grudge against him and, therefore, falsely implicated in this case whereas accused-respondent no. 1, Khelawan, stated that he was falsely implicated in the case because he is son of Birju.

12. From a perusal of the impugned judgement and order dated 10.9.2009, it appears that due to inadvertence and typographical mistake on the third page of the judgement, it has been written "it is 3 A378 No. 398 of 2009 pertinent to mention here that the injured Chheddu had died before the evidence and his statement could not be recorded..." whereas the injured Ram Pal died on account of which his evidence could not be recorded and not Chheddu.

13. Now coming to the oral evidence, PW-1 Urmila Devi is the main witness. In her cross-examination, she categorically stated that the names of Madan, Khelawan and Birju were written in the FIR but they did nothing and were not involved in the incident. Further she deposed that Ram Khelawan, Madan and Birju did not participate in the occurrence and since they have earlier assaulted her mother-in- law, their names were written in the FIR.

14. PW-2 Sunil was also subjected to lengthy cross-examination. He deposed to the effect that it was Chheddu who had assaulted his father with Banka.

15. These evidences have been thoroughly and carefully examined by the trial court and appreciating all the relevant material on record and as per the settled principles of law, the trial court acquitted the respondents Khelawan and Birju by a well reasoned and speaking order.

16. The prosecution who was duty bound to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond a reasonable doubt, has miserably failed to discharge its onerous burden.

17. In view of above the application for leave to appeal is rejected and consequently the criminal appeal also stands dismissed. November 21, 2025 Fahim/- (Zafeer Ahmad,J.) (Rajnish Kumar,J.) MOHD FAHIM AKHTAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

3. It is argued that the trial court considered the evidence of injured witness only against one accused and not against all the accused persons, therefore, the trial court has committed manifest error of law. The judgement and order dated 10.9.2009 has been passed against the settled principle of law and facts.

4. Further submission is that the ocular evidence was squarely corroborated by medical evidence albeit the trial court extended the benefit of doubt to the respondents and convicted only one accused Chheddu Singh, therefore, the appellant may be granted the leave to appeal as the appeal deserves to be admitted and the impugned judgement and order deserves to be set aside.

5. We have heard learned AGA for the appellant-State at length and perused the material on record.

6. Before coming to merit, it would be apt to have a glance over the prosecution story.

7. Initially, a Non-Cognizable Report (NCR) was lodged by the 2 A378 No. 398 of 2009 complainant Ram Pal against Chheddu, Khelavan, Birju and Madan alleging that the accused persons had uprooted his pegs which were fixed in the Sehan and when he objected, they assaulted him by lathi- dandas and abused and when his wife tried to protect him, she was also assaulted. Subsequently on the basis of medical report, x-ray report and x-ray plates, the case was altered to Section 307 IPC and the case was registered on Case Crime No. 203 of 2000 under Sections 307, 323, 324 IPC. The investigating officer, SI Sri Krishna Gopal recorded the statement of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C., inspected the place of occurrence, prepared site-plan and analyzed the injury report, x-ray report and x-ray plate. After concluding the investigation, he submitted charge sheet against three accused persons, the respondents herein and Chheddu Singh.

8. After compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C., the ACJM, Court No. 3, Kheri committed the case to the court of sessions, being exclusively triable by it. Thereafter the case was assigned to the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Kheri. The accused persons appeared before the trial court and the court framed charges under Section 307/34 and 323/34 IPC on 14.10.2003 whereupon the accused- respondents pleaded 'not guilty' and pleaded for trial.

9. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 Urmila Devi, the injured witness and wife of complainant, Ram Pal. Sunil, the eye witness, was examined as PW-2, Dr. P.K. Gangwar who conducted medical examination of the victim and injured persons and also conducted x-ray test and prepared report thereof as PW-3 and Sub-Inspector Krishna Gopal Tripathi who had investigated the case and submitted charge sheet against the accused persons was examined as PW-4.

10. It is also noteworthy here that the complainant Ram Pal, who also sustained injuries in the incident and lodged the NCR against Chheddu, Khelawan @ Ram Khelawan and Birju, the accused- respondents herein, could not be examined in the trial court as he died before the commencement of trial.

11. After completion of the prosecution evidence, statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which the accused persons denied the prosecution version and pleaded not guilty but no evidence, either documentary or oral, was produced by the accused persons in defence. Accused-respondent no. 2 Birju in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. stated that complainant's relative Sudarshan assaulted him and his mother about 30 years ago for which a case was registered. The police also created a cross case which ultimately culminated into acquittal. Since then complainant bore a grudge against him and, therefore, falsely implicated in this case whereas accused-respondent no. 1, Khelawan, stated that he was falsely implicated in the case because he is son of Birju.

12. From a perusal of the impugned judgement and order dated 10.9.2009, it appears that due to inadvertence and typographical mistake on the third page of the judgement, it has been written "it is 3 A378 No. 398 of 2009 pertinent to mention here that the injured Chheddu had died before the evidence and his statement could not be recorded..." whereas the injured Ram Pal died on account of which his evidence could not be recorded and not Chheddu.

13. Now coming to the oral evidence, PW-1 Urmila Devi is the main witness. In her cross-examination, she categorically stated that the names of Madan, Khelawan and Birju were written in the FIR but they did nothing and were not involved in the incident. Further she deposed that Ram Khelawan, Madan and Birju did not participate in the occurrence and since they have earlier assaulted her mother-in- law, their names were written in the FIR.

14. PW-2 Sunil was also subjected to lengthy cross-examination. He deposed to the effect that it was Chheddu who had assaulted his father with Banka.

15. These evidences have been thoroughly and carefully examined by the trial court and appreciating all the relevant material on record and as per the settled principles of law, the trial court acquitted the respondents Khelawan and Birju by a well reasoned and speaking order.

16. The prosecution who was duty bound to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond a reasonable doubt, has miserably failed to discharge its onerous burden.

17. In view of above the application for leave to appeal is rejected and consequently the criminal appeal also stands dismissed. November 21, 2025 Fahim/- (Zafeer Ahmad,J.) (Rajnish Kumar,J.) MOHD FAHIM AKHTAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench