HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 378 No. - 115 of 2024 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE MRS. VANI RANJAN AGRAWAL, J. 1. Heard Sri Rajkumar Verma, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Rahul Asthana, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present application under Section 378 has been moved on behalf of applicant against the impugned judgment and order dated 23.11.2023 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.4/Judicial Magistrate, Etawah, in Complaint Case No.662 of 2008 (Munni Devi Vs. Bade @ Sudeep Kumar and others) under Sections 323, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C. Police Station- Kotwali, District- Etawah. 3. The present appeal arises out of a complaint case relating to allegations of trespass, assault, voluntarily causing hurt, abuse and criminal intimidation. After recording the statements under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., the accused were summoned for trial of offence under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. 4. The brief facts as borne out from the record are that the appellant filed a complaint alleging that the accused person forcibly entered her house, assaulted her husband and daughter with lathi and danda, hurled abuses and extended threats to kill. After recording the statement U/s 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., the learned Trial Court summoned the accused person for trial of offence U/s 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. 5. During the course of trial, the complainant adduced evidence U/s 244 Cr.P.C. However, several opportunities being given to witness appeared for cross-examination. Consequently, the learned Trial court recorded that in absence of cross-examination, the evidence U/s 244 Cr.P.C. could not be read. As no evidence was thereafter produced under section 246 Cr.P.C., the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajkumar Verma Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Munni Devi .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 6 Others .....Opposite Party(s) trial court dismissed the complaint and acquitted the accused person vide judgement and order dated 23.11.2023. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the witnesses could not appear for cross-examination as initially the date in the month of December was fixed by the trial court, which was subsequently changed, and due to lack of information regarding the changed date the witnesses remained absent. It is argued that the acquittal is, therefore, erroneous and calls for interference. 7. From the material placed on record, it is evident that no copy of order- sheet has been filed to substantiate the plea that a date fixed in the month of December was subsequently altered by the trial court. On the contrary, the date sheet annexed with affidavit (Annexure-3) by the appellant himself clearly indicates that the witnesses failed to appear before the trial court despite due opportunities. The plea of change of date is not supported by record and appears to be an afterthought. 8. Another aspect which further weakens the case of the complainant is the absence of any medical evidence. Though it is true that in an offence under section 323 I.P.C. production of an injury report is not an absolute legal requirement, yet where the allegation is of assault by lathi and danda by six accused persons, it is but natural that some visible injury, howsoever minor, would have been sustained by the victim. 9. In facts and circumstances of the case, non production of any medical examination or injury report assumes significance and casts a serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution version. Thus omission when examined cumulatively with the failure of complainant's witnesses to offer themselves for cross-examination gravely dents the prosecution version and justifies the interference drawn by the Trial court. 10. It is well settled that evidence recorded under section 244 Cr.P.C. can not be read unless the accused is afforded an opportunity of cross- examination where the complainant and his witnesses failed to submit themselves in cross-examination despite repeated opportunities, the trial court is justified in declining to rely upon such evidence. 11. The learned Trial court has followed the procedure prescribed under law and has recorded acquittal only after granting sufficient opportunities to the complainant. No perversity, illegality or manifest error has been pointed out in the impugned judgement warranting interference by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under section 378(4) Cr.P.C. A378 No. 115 of 2024 2 12. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no ground to grant special leave to appeal. The appeal is liable to be dismissed. 13. Accordingly, the present application for special leave to appeal is dismissed. January 29, 2026 P. Pandey A378 No. 115 of 2024 3 (Mrs. Vani Ranjan Agrawal,J.) Digitally signed by :- PUSHPENDRA PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad