HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION U/S 419 BNSS DEFECTIVE No. - 90 of 2025 Court No. - 81 HON'BLE MANOJ BAJAJ, J. The applicant has filed this application under Section 419(4) Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for setting aside the impugned judgment dated 29.03.2025 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 05, Bareilly in Complaint Case No. 3078 of 2021; titled Ram Chandra v. Ram Gopal Pandey and Other, under Sections 352, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Fatehganj West, District Bareilly, whereby opposite party nos. 2 to 8 have been acquitted. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the complainant namely Ram Chandra (now deceased) had given a complaint to the police in respect of the occurrence dated 10.6.2010, alleging that the accused persons who are his neighbours raised a dispute regarding usage of passage by the complainant and had given beatings to him after entering the house. According to the learned counsel, the complaint by the complainant was not acted upon, therefore, he moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate and the same was treated as a complaint case. He further submits that in support of the complaint, the complainant examined himself and also produced two witnesses namely Pradeep Singh and Sannu Singh as P.W.1 and P.W.2 respectively, but his complaint was dismissed in terms of section 203 Cr.P.C. However, the said order dated 10.1.2011 was set-aside by the revisional court and the case was remanded back for a fresh consideration. Learned counsel has pointed out that thereafter the accused was Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : R. B. Singh Parmar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Ram Chandra (Deceased) And Another .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 7 Others .....Opposite Party(s) summoned for alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 352, 452, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and later, the pre-charge evidence under Section 244 Cr.P.C. was recorded and finally after completion of trial, the accused were acquitted. Learned counsel has argued that the case of the prosecution is well supported by the witnesses, but the trial Court has not carefully examined the complainant's evidence while acquitting the accused, therefore, the impugned judgement of acquittal calls for interference by this Court. He prays for grant of leave to appeal. Upon hearing the learned counsel and considering his submissions, this Court finds that the complainant could not be examined under Section 246 Cr.P.C. for cross-examination as before that stage he had died. As per allegations in the complaint, the occurrence of assault took place in the house of the complainant who was allegedly saved by two persons namely Pradeep Singh and Sannu Singh, but the said witnesses were not examined during recording of pre-charge evidence under Section 244 Cr.P.C. That apart, the alleged beatings to the complainant have not been supported with any medical evidence. Most importantly, the witnesses namely Jai Narayan, Asharfi Lal and Ravindra Kumar examined during pre-charge evidence were also recalled for further cross-examination under Section 246 Cr.P.C., who admitted that initially their names were not contained in the list of witnesses and on the date of occurrence these prosecution witnesses did not visit the house of Ram Chandra. The trial Court has carefully noticed the serious discrepancies in the prosecution evidence, while extending the benefit of doubt to the accused, therefore, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the judgement of acquittal dated 29.03.2025 is based on correct appreciation of evidence on record, and does not call for any interference by this Court. Resultantly, no ground is made out for grant of leave to appeal. Dismissed. September 8, 2025 Shiv NA419D No. 90 of 2025 2 (Manoj Bajaj,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHIV KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad