Brajesh Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 10019 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Brajesh Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 1 September, 2025

Author: Shekhar Kumar Yadav

Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:153359

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5485 of 2024

Brajesh Kumar

.....Appellant(s)

Versus

State of U.P. and Another

.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)

:

Mahendra Singh

Counsel for Respondent(s)

:

G.A., Sanjive Kumar Gupta

HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J. 1. Heard Mr. Mahendra Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A for the State, Mr. Sanjive Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 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 judgement and order dated 22.02.2024 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Sambhal at Chandausi in Special Sessions Trial No.82 of 2018 arising out of Case Crime No.164 of 2017 (Computer No.151 of 2018) under Sections 324, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)R,S SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Police Station Gunnaur, District Sambhal by which the opposite party no.2 has been acquitted.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that complainant as well as witnesses have fully supported the prosecution by stating that the opposite party no.2 has committed maarpeet with the appellant and also abused caste related words but the trial court without recording the statement of the doctor, acquitted the opposite party no.2. He further submits that the prosecution has produced many witnesses to substantiate the prosecution versions and they 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 the parties and found 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.

(Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.)

September 1, 2025

Ajeet