Allahabad High Court
KRISHNA KUMAR AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
A conviction under Section 323 IPC may be sustained on the basis of consistent, reliable testimony of injured eyewitnesses, and the trial court's appreciation of such evidence was not erroneous.
Summary
The appellants Krishna Kumar, Lallu and Suresh were convicted under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code for assaulting the complainant Badri Prasad and his family members, based on the testimony of two injured eyewitnesses. They were released on probation instead of being sentenced to imprisonment. The appellants challenged the conviction, arguing that the prosecution witnesses were not wholly reliable and that the evidence did not meet the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court examined the cross‑examination of the witnesses and found their statements consistent and reliable, noting that such testimony is sufficient for a simple assault conviction. Consequently, the Court held that there was no error in the trial court’s appreciation of the evidence and affirmed the conviction. The appeal was dismissed and the trial court’s order was upheld.
Issues considered
- Whether the testimony of the injured eyewitnesses was sufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 323 IPC.
- Whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellants on the basis of the evidence presented.
- Whether the conviction should be set aside on the ground of insufficient proof.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 319
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 148, 323, 352
Subjects
- assault
- Section 323 IPC
- probation
- evidence appraisal
- witness reliability
- conviction affirmation
Judgment
Reserved on 29.5.2026
Delivered on 18.9.2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2971 of 1987
Krishna Kumar And Others
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : P.K.Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.G.A.
Court No. - 54
HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.
1. Heard Ms. Abida Syed, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Sri
K.K. Gupta, learned AGA for the State.
2. The accused-appellants have been convicted and sentenced vide judgment
and order dated 3.11.1987 passed by Sessions Judge, Banda in Sessions Trial
No. 311 of 1986, whereby the appellants were convicted under Section 323
IPC and appellants-accused are directed to be released on probation of good
conduct on furnishing personal bonds and two sureties each in the sum of
Rs. 500/-.
3. The appeal in respect of appellant nos. 3 (Lallu) has been abated vide
order dated 6.5.2026.
4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 14.10.1984 at 5:30 A.M., Badri
Prasad lodged a written F.I.R. (Ex.Ka.1) at Police Station Pailani, alleging
that Krishna Kumar, Lallu, Ramesh, Suresh and Ram Bhajan, armed with
lathis and farsas, attacked his son Puttan and manhandled him. When Badri
Prasad intervened, the accused persons assaulted him with lathis and farsa.
His daughters-in-law, namely, Smt. Bhuri and Smt. Jagrani, came to rescue
him, but the accused persons also assaulted them with lathis and abused
them. On the basis of the written report, the police registered the case and
took up the investigation.
5. The case was registered on the same day as Case Crime No. 234 of 1984,
under Sections 147, 352 and 323 IPC, at Police Station Pailani, District
CRLA No. 2971 of 1987
2
Banda. After investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet under
Section 323 IPC against three accused, namely, Krishna Kumar, Lallu and
Suresh, whereas the remaining accused, Ramesh and Ram Bhajan, were
exonerated.
6. Charges under Sections 147, 148 and 323 IPC were framed against
accused Krishna Kumar, Lallu and Suresh The other two accused, namely,
Ramesh and Ram Bhajan, who had been exonerated during investigation,
were summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C.During trial, the prosecution
examined four witnesses, out of whom P.W.-1 Badri Prasad and P.W.-2
Jagrani were the eyewitnesses as well as injured witnesses. Both supported
the prosecution case. The remaining two witnesses were formal witnesses.
7. The learned Trial Court, after examining the testimony of the prosecution
witnesses, found their statements reliable to a large extent. Accordingly, the
accused persons were acquitted of the charge under Section 147 IPC.
Accused Ramesh and Ram Bhajan were also acquitted of the charge under
Section 323 IPC. However, accused Krishna Kumar, Suresh and Lallu were
held guilty under Section 323 IPC and, instead of awarding them any
punishment, they were released on probation.
8. Learned Amicus Curiae submits that the learned Trial Court has not
properly appreciated the evidence available on record and has recorded the
findings of conviction without sufficient evidence. It is further submitted
that the prosecution witnesses were not wholly reliable and their testimony
did not establish the charges against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt.
It is, therefore, contended that the impugned judgment is liable to be set
aside.
9. Learned A.G.A. submits that the learned Trial Court has rightly
appreciated the evidence available on record and has passed the impugned
judgment in accordance with law. It is further submitted that the prosecution
case was duly supported by the injured eyewitnesses, the testimony of whom
were found reliable by the learned Trial Court. The impugned judgment,
therefore, calls for no interference.
10. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the
appellants and learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
11. The prosecution witnesses, namely, P.W.-1 Badri Prasad and P.W.-2
Jagrani, were extensively cross-examined by the defence. The learned Trial
Court has also scrutinised their testimony and, after careful appreciation of
the evidence, acquitted the accused persons of the remaining charges, while
recording their conviction only under Section 323 IPC. This itself indicates
CRLA No. 2971 of 1987
3
that the evidence was examined with due care and the findings were
recorded on the basis of the material available on record.
12. In cases involving an offence under Section 323 IPC, where the
allegation is of simple assault, consistent testimony of the witnesses
regarding the incident of assault, if found reliable, may be sufficient to
sustain the conviction. In the present case, both the witnesses are injured
eyewitnesses and have supported the prosecution version regarding the
assault. Their testimony does not suffer from any such material infirmity
which may warrant interference with the findings recorded by the learned
Trial Court.
13. In view of the above, this Court finds no sufficient ground to interfere
with the impugned judgment. The findings recorded by the learned Trial
Court are accordingly affirmed.
14. The Trial Court's record shall be remitted back along with a copy of this
judgment.
15. Compliance report be submitted to this Court at the earliest. Office is
directed to keep the compliance report on record.
16. Ms. Abida Syed, learned Amicus Curiae, who has given her valuable
assistance to the Court, shall be paid fees as admissible to an Amicus Curiae
as per rules.
September 18, 2026
Ujjawal
(Anil Kumar-X,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
UJJAWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…