Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:136990 Court No. - 81 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL U/S 413 BNSS No. - 120 of 2025 Appellant :- Akhatar Ansari Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Akal Raj Singh,Upendra Kumar Pushkar Counsel for Respondent :- Brij Bhushan Prasad Shrivastava,G.A. Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj,J. Complainant-Applicant has filed this application for leave to appeal under Section 413 B.N.S.S. to challenge the judgment and order dated 18.12.2024 passed by Special Judge (SC/ ST Act), Kushinagar at Padrauna in Sessions Trial No. 25 of 2004, titled State Vs. Zakir and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 320A of 1995, under Section 323, 506 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Kotwali Padrauna, District Kushinagar, whereby the trial court has acquitted the accused-respondent nos.2 and 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the opposite party nos.2 and 3 were prosecuted for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 323, 506 I.P.C. and the prosecution evidence proved the involvement of the accused in commission of crime, despite that the trial Court proceeded to acquit the accused persons. He submits that the occurrence is not disputed by the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 who had also set-up a cross case, therefore, when the alleged offence pertains to the offence against the human body supported by the injured witnesses, the impugned judgement of acquittal would call for interference by this Court. He prays that the leave to appeal be granted in favour of the applicant-complainant. The prayer is opposed by the learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 and 3 who argued that the offences alleged by the complainant are not made out and the trial Court has carefully examined the entire evidence on record while acquitting the accused persons, therefore, it is not a fit case for grant of leave to the complainant. Learned counsel has further argued that the cross case set-up by the accused ended in a conviction of the complainant's side for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. etc., therefore, it becomes clear that there was no occasion for the accused to intimidate the complainant who are guilty for committing the offence of attempt to murder. He prays that the application be dismissed. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering their submissions, this Court finds that as far as the occurrence is concerned the same is not disputed by the parties, who had set-up rival cases against each other. During the course of hearing, it is conceded by the learned counsel for the applicant-complainant that the alleged injuries inviting the offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C., suffered by Zakir Hussain and Nisha, were caused by gun-shot fire. Further, the trial Court while examining the evidence on record has categorically held that the complainant-applicant party was aggressor and the injuries suffered by the complainant could have been possibly caused in resistance offered by the victims. The reasoning given in the impugned judgment of acquittal while extending benefit of doubt to the accused is based on sound judicial principles, therefore, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the impugned judgment of acquittal does not call for any interference by this Court. Resultantly, the application seeking leave to appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 12.8.2025/ Shiv/ Raj NC413 No. 120 of 2025 2 Digitally signed by :- SHIV KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad