Allahabad High Court
Sri Chandra Singh And Ors. vs State Of U.P. on 15 October, 2025
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:64222
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 20 of 2011
Sri Chandra Singh And Ors.
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
Amit Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Govt. Advocate
Court No. - 13
HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) has been filed against the judgment and order dated 30.11.2010, passed by the Additional Session Judge/F.T.C.-IV, Court No.13, Sultanpur in Session Trial No.107/2007 arising out of Case Crime No.329/2001, Police Station - Kadipur, District - Sultanpur. By the impugned judgment and order the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 323/34 I.P.C. and have been granted the benefit of Probation of Offender Act.
3. The brief facts of the case are to the effect that on 08.09.2001, at about 7.00 A.M. the appellants namely Sri Chandra Singh, Ashok Singh, Jitendra Singh and Rajendra Singh assaulted Guddu and Bajrangi Singh, who was trying to construct the boundary wall which was opposed by the present appellants, and also hurled abuses including the castiest remark.
4. In the incident infact Guddu sustained injuries. With regard to the aforesaid incident, an F.I.R. was registered as Case Crime No.329 of 2001, under Sections 323/34, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) (X) of SC/ST Act, at Police Station - Kadipur, District - Sultanpur.
5. After lodging of the aforesaid F.I.R., the investigation was carried out and on completion of the investigation the Investigating Officer (in short "I.O.") submitted the charge sheet.
6. After submission of charge sheet, the Magistrate concerned took cognizance and the said case was committed to the Court of Session, where it was registered as S.T. No.107/2007 and the trial court, based on the evidence available on record, framed charges for the offence under Sections 323/34, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) (X) of SC/ST Act against the appellants, which they denied and claimed trial.
7. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined the complainant of the case, injured - Guddu (PW-1), Bajrangi Singh (PW-2), who proved the factual aspect of the case, and Hansraj (PW-3). Formal witness Dr. B.N. Tiwari (PW-4) proved the injury report of the injured Guddu (Ext. Ka-7). I.O. Sanjay Kumar (PW-5) and Constable - Yogendra Singh (PW-6) proved the documentary evidence including the charge sheet (Ext.-Ka-8).
8. After closing of the evidence of the prosecution, statement of accused/appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded by the trial court, after explaining the entire evidence and circumstances, in which appellants denied prosecution story and the entire prosecution story was said to be wrong and concocted.
9. Thereafter, the learned trial court after hearing learned counsel for both the parties and appreciating the entire evidence oral as well as documentary, found the accused/appellants guilty and convicted the appellants for the offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and the trial court after taking note of the facts of the case that the accused-appellants were not previous convict, extended the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act.
10. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of conviction, the appellants have preferred the present appeal.
11. At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the period of probation has already completed and in convicting the appellants for the offence under Section 323/34 I.P.C. the trial court has committed error of law and fact both.
12. Learned A.G.A. has submitted that the judgment is perfectly justified as the same is based upon the evidence including the testimony of injured witness Guddu, who sustained four injuries and which were proved before the trial court by Dr. B.N. Tiwari (PW-4). Therefore, no interference in the matter is required.
13. Considered the aforesaid and perused the record.
14. From the record including the judgment under appeal, it is apparent that the injured Guddu sustained four injuries and the injury report of the injured (Ext.Ka-7) was duly proved by Dr. B.N. Tiwari before the trial court.
15. Considered the aforesaid as also the principles related to dealing with the testimony of the injured witness according to which the evidence of an injured witness must be given due weightage as being an injured witness, his presence cannot be doubted. His statement is generally considered to be very reliable and it is unlikely that he/she has spared the actual assailant in order to falsely implicate someone else. The testimony of an injured witness has its own relevancy and efficacy as he has sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence and this lends support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence. Thus, the testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law. The witness would not like or want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to implicate a third person falsely for the commission of the offence. Thus, the evidence of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are grounds for the rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein [Vide: State of M.P. vs. Mansingh, (2003) 10 SCC 414; Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, (2009) 9 SCC 719; Balraje @ Trimbak v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 6 SCC 673; Abdul Sayeed vs. State of M.P., (2010) 10 SCC 259; State of U.P. vs. Naresh, (2011) 4 SCC 324; Laxman Singh vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) (2021) 9 SCC 191; Balu Sudam Khalde and another vs. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 355].
16. Taking note of the above, this court is of the considered view that the judgment of the trial court is justified. The appeal has no force. Accordingly, it is dismissed.17. Let a certified copy of the judgment and order be sent to the court concerned for compliance.
18. The trial court record, if any, shall be sent back to the trial court concerned.
(Saurabh Lavania,J.)
October 15, 2025
ML/-
