HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL U/S 372 CR.P.C. No. - 714 of 2024 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 Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Ajay Kumar Vashistha Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Pankaj Kumar Sharma Hariom Mishra .....Appellant(s) State Of U.P. And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) 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 2 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 C372 No. 714 of 2024 3 (Mrs. Vani Ranjan Agrawal,J.) Digitally signed by :- PUSHPENDRA PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad