Nankali vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:135311

Court No. - 81

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION U/S 419 BNSS No. - 94 of 2025

Applicant :- Nankali Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ankit Pandey,Deepak Gaur Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj,J.

¶6

Complainant-Applicant has filed this application under Section 419(4) B.N.S.S., 2023 to challenge the judgment dated 21.03.2025 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi in Complaint Case No. 4561 of 2016; titled Nankali vs. Urmila Devi , under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Sarai Akil, District Kaushambi, whereby the trial court has acquitted the accused-opposite party nos. 2 to 4 for the alleged offences.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant-complainant has argued that on 31st August, 2016, three accused persons namely Urmila, Ram Naresh and Lavkush entered her house at 07:00 pm and started abusing and beating her, and in this regard, she had given a complaint on 1st September, 2016 to the police, whereupon, no action was taken, therefore, she filed a complaint before the Magistrate. He further submits that after recording the presummoning evidence, the accused were summoned for alleged commission of offences under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, who have been wrongly acquitted through the impugned judgment dated 21.3.2025. Learned counsel refers to the evidence of complainant-PW-1 and vehemently argued that the accused persons were armed with sticks, and as a result of blows given by them, the complainant suffered injuries and bleeding, despite that the trial court has acquitted the accused. According to the learned counsel, the impugned judgment of acquittal is not based upon correct appreciation of the evidence on record, and the judgment calls for interference by this Court.

¶8

Upon hearing the learned counsel and considering his submissions, this Court does not find any merit in the case, as the pleadings of the complaint dated 19th September, 2016 would show that it is clearly mentioned by the complainant that when she gave a

¶9

complaint to the police on 1st September, 2016, neither any action was taken against the accused, nor she was got medically examined.

¶10

Concededly, the prosecution evidence is without any medical report of the injured and a bald statement by the complainant before the trial court that she got herself medically examined is not sufficient to prove the alleged injuries suffered by her. Further, it is also admitted by the complainant in her cross-examination that previously a case under Section 376 IPC lodged by her against the accused ended in their acquittal. The accused had set up a specific defence that the complainant is falsely implicating the accused, and considering the evidence on record, the trial court has acquitted the accused persons. The conclusion drawn by the trial court is founded upon proper appreciation of the evidence on record, and the impugned judgment dated 21.3.2025 does not call for any interference by this Court.

¶11

Resultantly, the application fails and is hereby dismissed.

¶12

Order Date :- 11.8.2025 Brijesh

¶13

Digitally signed by :- BRIJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Nankali v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nankali v. State of U.P. and 3 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

Iqbal vs State of U.P. and 10 Others

Smt. Viddhiya Devi and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Gauri Verma vs State of U.P through Its Principal Secretary (Home) and 2 Others

Smt. Neeraj vs State of U.P. and Another

Jata Shankar Pandey vs State of U.P. and Another

Praveen Kumar Chaubey vs State of U.P. and Another