HARIOM MISHRAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

        CRIMINAL APPEAL U/S 372 CR.P.C. No. - 714 of 2024

Hariom Mishra
                                                             .....Appellant(s)
                                   Versus
State Of U.P. And 5 Others
                                                           .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)              :     Ajay Kumar Vashistha
Counsel for Respondent(s)             :     G.A., Pankaj Kumar Sharma

Court No. - 93
           HON'BLE MRS. VANI RANJAN AGRAWAL, J.
1. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order of
release/acquittal dated 17.10.2024, passed by Sessions Judge, Kasganj, in
Session Trial No.430 of 2017 (State Vs. Pradeep Kumar @ Pappu and
others), arising out of Case Crime No. 246 of 2016, under Sections 147, 323
and 324 I.P.C. read with section 149 I.P.C, Police Station- Soron, District-
Kasganj.

2. Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Vashistha, learned counsel for the appellant and
Sri Pankaj Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the opposite party.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 05.07.2016 at about 7.00 p.m.,
the appellant Hariom was proceeding towards the village market when the
accused Saurabh, riding a bicycle, intercepted him. On being question, he
abused the complainant and called other accused persons who arrived on the
spot armed with lathis, sticks and a country-made pistol and assaulted the
complainant.
4. On his alarm, his brother Ankit came to rescue him but he was also
assaulted by the accused person. They were taken to the police station and
thereafter for medical examination.
5. The medical evidence indicated that the complainant Hariom Mishra has
sustained injuries caused by hard and blunt object. Some of the injuries were
opined to be caused by sharp object. Some of the injuries were kept under
observation and advised for X-ray. In X-ray report, that has been proved by
P.W.-7 Dr. Rajiv Kumar Saxena, Radiologist, he deposed that on
06.07.2016, he conducted X-ray and noticed certain fractures including a
radiolucent shadow near the left radius bone and presence of plates and
nails. No fracture was found in X-ray of head.
6. The learned trial court, upon appreciation of evidence, recorded the
                                                           C372 No. 714 of 2024
                                2

finding that the alleged fracture injury could not be connected with the
incident dated 05.07.2016. It was observed that the X-ray was conducted on
the next day of the incident and there was no evidence on record to show as
to when and under what circumstances the plates and nails were inserted,
thereby creating a serious doubt that injury was pre-existing and not
attributed to the incident. The trial court further held that the remaining
injuries were simple in nature and did not fall within the ambit of section
325 I.P.C. or Section 308 I.P.C. Accordingly, the accused persons were
acquitted of the charges under Section 325 and 308 I.P.C. They were
convicted only for offences under Section 147, 323 and 324 I.P.C. read with
section 149 I.P.C. and were extended the benefit of probation, considering
that they were first time offenders.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial court failed to
properly appreciate the medical and ocular evidence and that the offence
under section 325 and 308 were clearly made out.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the
opposite party perused the record, this Court finds that the trial court has
carefully analyzed both the ocular and medical evidence on record. The
finding that the fracture injury cannot be connected with the incident is
based on valid reasoning, particularly in absence of any evidence explaining
the presence of plates and nails and the timing of such medical intervention.
This creates a reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution version to that
extent.
9. It is well settled that in criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution must
prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and benefit of doubt must go in
favour of the accused.
10. It is also settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that an order of
acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused.
Interference by the appellate court is warranted only when the findings of the
trial court are perverse, manifestly illegal or grossly unjust. Where two
views are possible on the evidence adduced, the one favourable to the
accused should ordinarily be adopted and the appellate court should not
interfere with an order of acquittal unless the conclusion drawn by the trial
court are unreasonable or perverse; otherwise, interference is unwarranted.
11. In the present case, the view taken by the trial court is plausible and
reasonable view, based on evidence. No perversity or illegality has been
demonstrated, so as to earn interference by this Court.
12. So far as the grant of benefit of Section of Probation of Offenders Act is
concerned, the same has been extended considering the nature of offence and
antecedents of the accused persons, which does not call for interference in
appeal.
                                                                                              C372 No. 714 of 2024
                                                                   3

                                    13. In view of the foregoing discussions the Court finds no sufficient ground
                                    to admit the present appeal filed under Section 372 Cr.P.C.

                                    14. Accordingly, the appeal filed under Section 372 Cr.P.C. is hereby
                                    rejected at admission stage.
                                    April 3, 2026
                                    P. Pandey
                                                                               (Mrs. Vani Ranjan Agrawal,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
PUSHPENDRA PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad