Dismissed¶13

State of U.P. v. Girdhari Yadav and Others

Allahabad HC8 Oct 2025C14A1/76/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court dismisses State appeal against acquittal under Section 14-A(1) SC/ST Act; acquittal of Girdhari Yadav and others upheld — no eyewitnesses to actual assault, prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, no interference warranted. S.T. No.100196 of 2016; Case Crime No.196 of 2013; P.S. Dhorighat, District Mau; Sections 147, 148, 323, 325, 504, 506 IPC; Section 3(1)(x) SC/ST Act; benefit of doubt; acquittal affirmed; decision dated October 9, 2025.

What did the court decide?

Endorsing the trial court's conclusion that no eye-witnesses saw the actual assault, the witnesses having arrived after the incident had occurred. ¶12

State of U.P. Vs Girdhari Yadav and Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPEAL AGAINST ACQUITTAL IN SC/ST ACT No. - 76 of 2025

¶3

State of U.P.

¶4

.....Appellant(s)

¶5

	Versus
Girdhari Yadav And Others	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Patanjali Mishra :

¶6

Court No. - 86

¶7

HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J.

¶8

Heard learned A.G.A for the State and also perused the record.

¶9

The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred to set aside the impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 21.7.2025 18.2.2025 and convict and sentence passed by learned Special Judge SC/ST Act,Mau in Session Trial No.100196 of 2016 arising out of Case Crime No.196 of 2013, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 325, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) SC/ST Act (State vs. Girdhari Yadav and others), Police Station Dhorighat, District Mau by which the opposite party nos.1 to 3 have been acquitted.

¶10

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that at the time of passing the impugned judgement and order trial court has not applied his judicial mind. There are sufficient materials on record to convict the respondents. In the present case during course the investigating officer well connected the chain of circumstances which proves that the offence has been committed by the accused. 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.

¶11

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

¶12

The court concluded that no eye-witnesses saw the actual assault, as the witnesses arrived after the incident had occurred.

¶13

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. Therefore, no interference with the trial court's well-reasoned decision is warranted. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The judgment of the trial court is upheld.

¶14

Consequently, the appeal is accordingly dismissed.

¶15

October 9, 2025 A.

¶16

(Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.)

¶17

Digitally signed by :- AFAQ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

State of U.P. v. Girdhari Yadav and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P. v. Girdhari Yadav and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases