HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD JAIL APPEAL No. - 402 of 2018 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE MRS. VANI RANJAN AGRAWAL, J. 1. Heard Sri Rashmi Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Krishna Mohan Tiwari, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This jail appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 07.09.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Kanpur Dehat in Sessions Trial No.391 of 2014 (State Vs. Deepak), arising out of Case Crime No.236 of 2011, under Sections 323, 324, 308 I.P.C., Police Station Sajeti, District Kanpur Nagar by which the appellant has been convicted for the offences under Sections 323, 324, 308 I.P.C. and awarded maximum sentence of 5 years with rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulations. 3. The prosecution's case, in brief, is that the appellant, Deepak S/o Guru Soni, R/o Village Chitauli, P.S. Sajeti, District Kanpur Nagar, assaulted the injured with a knife, causing multiple injuries, including grievous internal injuries which required surgical intervention. The injured remained hospitalized for about ten days and underwent surgery. The incident is stated to have occurred on account of a sudden altercation between the accused and the complainant's brother. 4. The First Information Report was registered on the basis of a written report, and G.D. entries were made. The injured was medically examined, and after completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : From Jail, Rashmi Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.G.A. Deepak .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. .....Respondent(s) 5. Charges were framed against the accused under Sections 323, 324, and 307 I.P.C. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. The prosecution examined as many as six witnesses to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt: P.W.-1, Complainant Sonu Sachaan; P.W.-2, Pradeep Kumar (brother of the complainant); P.W.-3, S.I. Prem Prakash Dixit; P.W.-4, Dr. Prem Shankar Sahacharya; P.W.-5, Lalitesh Narayan Tripathi; and P.W.-6, Dr. A.K. Pandey, who conducted the C.T. scan and operation of the injured. Documentary evidence, including the written report, First Information Report, carbon copy of G.D., medical report, and C.T. scan report (Ext. Ka-1 to Ka-5), are on record. 7. The trial court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, particularly the testimony of the injured Pradeep Kumar (P.W.-2) and the medical evidence adduced by Dr. Prem Shankar (P.W.-4) and Dr. A.K. Pandey (P.W.-6), came to the conclusion that although the injuries were serious in nature, the intention to commit murder was not established beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the charge under Section 307 I.P.C. was not found proved; however, the act of the appellant was held to fall within the ambit of Section 308 I.P.C., along with Sections 323 and 324 I.P.C. The accused was therefore convicted under Sections 308, 323, and 324 I.P.C. and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (in default, six months' additional imprisonment) under Section 308 I.P.C.; one year's rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (in default, three months' additional imprisonment) under Section 323 I.P.C.; and two years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- (in default, three months' additional imprisonment) under Section 324 I.P.C. 8. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, the present appeal has been preferred. 9. During the pendency of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has already undergone the entire sentence awarded by the trial court and does not intend to press the appeal on merits. It was prayed that the appeal be JAPL No. 402 of 2018 2 dismissed accordingly. 10. Notwithstanding the aforesaid submission, this Court has perused the record and examined the evidence to satisfy itself regarding the correctness, legality, and propriety of the impugned judgment. 11. The testimony of P.W.-1, the complainant Sonu Sachaan, and P.W.-2, the injured Pradeep Kumar, is consistent and inspires confidence. It is a settled principle of law that the testimony of an injured witness carries great evidentiary value and ordinarily should not be discarded unless there are strong grounds to do so. 12. The medical evidence fully corroborates the occurrence and the prosecution version. 13. It is clearly established that the injured sustained multiple stab injuries on vital parts of the body, including the chest and abdomen. The medical evidence further indicates that the injured had to undergo surgery, and in the absence of timely medical treatment, the injuries could have proved fatal. The internal injuries, including damage to the lungs, lend strong assurance to the prosecution case. 14. The nature of the injuries, the weapon used, and the manner of assault clearly establish that the act of the appellant was done with the knowledge that it was likely to cause death, though the intention to commit murder has not been established. The learned trial court, therefore, rightly convicted the appellant under Sections 323, 324, and 308 I.P.C. 15. So far as the conviction is concerned, the same is supported by reliable evidence on record and does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. 16. The findings recorded by the trial court are based on proper appreciation of evidence and do not call for interference by this Court. The sentences awarded are also proportionate to the nature and gravity of the offence. 17. It is well settled in the case of Mani Singh and others v. JAPL No. 402 of 2018 3 State of U.P., (1996) 4 SCC 720 by the Hon'ble Apex Court that even where an appeal is not pressed, the appellate court may examine the record to ensure that there is no miscarriage of justice. Further, where the appellant has already undergone the sentence and does not wish to press the appeal, the same can be dismissed accordingly. 18. In Abdul Rahman v. State of Kerala, (2011) 8 SCC 65, it was held that where the appellant has already undergone the sentence and no illegality or perversity is found in the impugned judgment, no interference is warranted. 19. The appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence are hereby affirmed. April 22, 2026 Pravesh Mishra JAPL No. 402 of 2018 4 (Mrs. Vani Ranjan Agrawal,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRAVESH KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad