Mahavir Singh And Another vs State Of U.P.
2025 Latest Caselaw 9319 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Mahavir Singh And Another vs State Of U.P. on 28 August, 2025

Author: Shekhar Kumar Yadav

Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:150817
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7689 of 2025
 
Court No. - 83
 
HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A for the State as also perused the record.

2. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 13.01.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions/Special Judge SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Mainpuri in Special S.T. No.41 of 2018 (State of U.P. vs. Sanjay Kumar and another) arising out of Case Crime No.1434 of 2017, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)r & s of SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Mainpuri.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are labour appellant no.1 is the first informant and the appellant no.2 is the injured. The incident is of day light and all evidences are brought on record including the medical evidences which specifically supports the prosecution version but the same has been overlooked by the trial court to render illegal benefit to the accused persons. The witnesses have genuinely supported the prosecution in words and spirit but the learned court below misinterpreted the same. He further submits that the judgment impugned is illegal, perverse, malicious, based on no substance and logic and badly travel beyond the substantive evidence on record, hence, the same is liable to be quashed.

4. I have perused the impugned judgement recorded by the trial court.

5. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and I am of the view that the court's reasoning for acquittal is sound and based on a thorough appreciation of the evidence. The trial court correctly concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. There are no grounds for granting special leave to appeal. Therefore, no interference with the trial court's well-reasoned decision is warranted.

6. Consequently, the appeal is accordingly dismissed.

August 28, 2025

Ajeet