State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. vs Rajit Ram Yadav and 3 Others

The Leave to Appeal filed under Section 378(3) Criminal Procedure Code(in short Cr.P.C.) is directed against the judgement and order dated 18.7.2025 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-I, Ambedkar Nagar in session trial no. 161 of 2016 arising out of case crime no. 74 of 2016, under Sections 304/34, 323/34, 325/34 and 504 I.P.C., police station Baskharee, district Ambedkar Nagar whereby the accusedrespondents have been acquitted by the trial court.

¶16

A378D No. 12 of 2026

¶17

2

¶18

The prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant Santosh Kumar Yadav submitted a handwritten complaint on 14.04.2016 at the concerned Police Station stating that due to a land dispute, on 28.03.2016 at around 07:30 pm, the accused respondents Rajit Ram Yadav, Ramju Yadav, Ramesh Gupta and Arun Gupta abused and beaten his mother, due to which, she suffered injuries on the neck and other parts of her body. The complainant took her mother to Azamgarh Life Line Hospital(Private). The treatment continued till 07.04.2016. He also stated that after discharge from the hospital, his grandfather namely Kanhai Yadav(P.W. 2) earlier lodged a complaint at Baskhari police station. Thereafter, the mother of the complainant was given medical treatment at Baskhari Government Hospital and was sent to Akbarpur Government Hospital for X-ray and was again admitted to Azamgarh Life Line Hospital. She was discharged from the hospital on 13.04.2016 and brought home and on 14.4.2016 she died during treatment.

¶19

On the basis of the complaint, the FIR was registered against the accused persons as case crime no. 74 of 2016 under Sections 323, 504 and 304 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Baskhari. During the investigation, the investigating officer took statements of witnesses, inspected the spot of incident and prepared a map. After investigation, on the basis of sufficient evidence, a charge sheet was submitted against the accused respondents under Sections 304, 323, 325 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

To prove the case, the prosecution examined the following witnesses :-

¶21

P.W. 1, the complainant, Santosh Kumar Yadav, P.W. 2, Kanhai, P.W. 3 Akhilesh Kumar, P.W. 4 Constable Muharrir Harishyam Saroj, P.W. 5 Dr. Pramanand Yadav, Radiologist, P.W. 6 Mohd. Aasif, P.W. 7 Indrabali Yadav, P.W. 8 Dr. Praveen Barnwal and P.W. 9 Manoj Kumar.

¶22

The statement of the accused respondents were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they have stated that they are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case due to enmity of the village.

¶23

P.W. 1 Santosh Kumar Yadav, who is son of the deceased, has deposed that on 28.03.2016 around 07:30 pm, the accused respondents Rajit Ram Yadav, Ramju Yadav, Ramesh Gupta and Arun Gupta abused and beaten his mother, due to which, she suffered injuries on the neck and other parts of her body. The complainant took her mother to Azamgarh Life Line Hospital(Private). The treatment continued till 07.04.2016. He further deposed that after discharge from the hospital, his grandfather namely Kanhai Yadav(P.W. 2) earlier lodged a complaint at Baskhari police station, from where, the mother of the complainant was given medical treatment at Baskhari Government Hospital and was sent to Akbarpur Government Hospital for X-ray and was again admitted to Azamgarh Life Line Hospital. She was discharged from the hospital on

¶24

A378D No. 12 of 2026

¶25

3

¶26

13.04.2016 and was brought home and on 14.4.2016 she died during treatment.

¶27

In the cross-examination, P.W. 1 deposed that he was not present at the time of the incident.

¶28

P.W. 2 Kanhai who is father-in-law of the deceased has deposed that the accused respondents had abused and beaten his daughter-in-law with lathi, danda, kicks and fists. He deposed that he along-with his son-inlaw i.e. P.W. 1 and several persons went to the place of occurrence and tried to rescue her daughter-in-law. He deposed that he and his family got admitted his daughter-in-law in the Azamgarh Life Line Hospital(Private). He lodged the report on 7.4.2016 i.e. after discharge from the hospital. Thereafter, the deceased was admitted in the Baskhari Government Hospital and x-ray was conducted in the District Hospital. He deposed that after 15 days of the incident, his daughter-in-law died due to said injuries.

¶29

In cross-examination, P.W. 2 has deposed that he was not present at the time of incident.

¶30

P.W. 3 Akhilesh Kumar, who is son of the deceased, has deposed that the incident occurred on 28.3.2016 at around 7.30 a.m. in the evening. He deposed that due to land dispute the accused respondents abused his mother and beaten with lathi and danda. On receiving the information, he went along-with his family members at the place of the occurrence and seen the injuries of her mother. He deposed that his brother i.e. P.W. 1 took his mother to Azamgarh for treatment. Thereafter, his brother had lodged the report against the accused respondents.

¶31

P.W. 4 Constable Harishyam Saroj has deposed that on 14.6.2016 the P.W. 1 had give a written report against the accused respondents and on the basis of the said complaint he prepared the chik report.

¶32

P.W. 5 Dr. Parmand Yadav, Radiologist, has deposed that on 8.4.2016 he was posted in District Hospital, Ambedkar Nagar and the deceased was brought by Home-guard, Gayatri Yadav No. 1131 for x-ray. He further deposed that on 15.4.2016, his duty was in the postmortem house and on the said date, the deceased was brought by the Constable Awdhesh Kumar. She opined the cause of death due to septicemia.

¶33

P.W. 6 Mohd Asif has proved the inquest report conducted on 14.4.2016.

¶34

P.W. 7 Indrabali Yadav is relative of the deceased and is a witness of inquest, thus a formal witness.

¶35

P.W. 8 Dr. Praveen Barnwal, who was posted as Medical Officer at CHC Baskhari has deposed that the deceased was brought by the Home-

¶36

A378D No. 12 of 2026

¶37

4

¶38

guard Gayatri Devi No. 1131 and following injuries were found :-

¶39

(i) Injury no. 1 was a stitched wound on the front and right side of the neck covering an area of 3.5 cm.

¶40

(ii) Injury no. 2, a stitched wound measuring 3.5 cm, was found on the right side of the right alimentary canal(near the hip) The injured woman complained of pain throughout her body, neck and lower back. She had a catheter inserted in her nose esophagus and urinary tract.

¶41

P.W. 9 Manoj Kumar, who was the Investigating Officer in this Case investigated the matter and submitted the charge-sheet against the accused respondents.

¶42

Learned counsel for the appellant-State submits that the trial court has erred in appreciating the evidence on record and wrongly acquitted the accused-respondent.

¶43

From perusal of the evidence and material available on record, this Court finds that there is major contradiction in the statements of the P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3. The P.W. 1 and P.W. 2, in examination-in-chief, have stated that they were present at the time of incident but in crossexamination they stated that they were not present at the time of the incident. The P.W. 3 has stated that on receiving information, he alongwith his family member went to the place of occurrence. The distance of the place of occurrence from the village was stated to be 3 k.m. The statement of the P.W. 3 also indicates that he was not present at the time of incident. P.W. 2 has stated that he did not take the deceased to the police station on the day of incident, whereas he in his crossexamination has stated that he took the deceased to the police station on the day of incident. P.W. 1 has stated that he along-with several persons went to the place of occurrence but prosecution has not examined any independent witness. P.W. 1, 2 and 3 are relatives of the deceased and their statements are not consistent as such their testimonies cannot be relied upon. The trial court has rightly appreciated the oral testimonies of the P.W. 1, 2 and 3, who claimed to be eye-witnesses in this case.

¶44

P.W. 1, 2 and 3 have stated that the deceased was admitted in the Azamgarh Life Line Hospital but no documents in support thereof have been placed on record. This aspect of the matter has also rightly been considered by the trial court.

¶45

This Court finds that the P.W. 2, who is father-in-law registered the NCR at the concerned police station on 7.4.2016, whereas the incident occurred on 28.3.2016 i.e. after delay of ten days. The P.W. 1, who is son of the deceased again lodged the report on the date the deceased died i.e. 14.4.2016. The delay in lodging the F.I.R. creates doubt on the prosecution story.

¶46

A378D No. 12 of 2026

¶47

5

¶48

P.W. 5, who conducted the postmortem of the deceased has opined that the cause of death may be due to septicemia and the injuries may be caused due to accident.

¶49

This Court also finds that the ground considered by the trial court that the cause of the death may be due to septicemia cannot be ignored as the deceased was firstly admitted to the private hospital on the date of the incident i.e. 28.3.2016 and her treatment continued till 7.4.2016. On the report lodged by the P.W. 2, the deceased was brought to the CHC, Baskahri and P.W. 8 Dr. Praveen Barnwal found that the injury no. 1 was a stitched wound on the front and right side of the neck covering an area of 3.5 cm. and injury no. 2 was also stitched wound measuring 3.5 cm on the right side of the right alimentary canal(near the hip) and the injured woman was complaining of pain throughout her body, neck and lower back. The injuries found on the deceased indicates that the deceased was already under treatment in the hospital somewhere and her condition was very bad, may be, due to septicemia.

¶50

The investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer becomes questionable as the NCR lodged by the P.W. 2 on 7.4.2016 was not converted into the F.I.R. even after the injuries of the deceased were examined and same came into the knowledge of the Investigating Officer. It was only after the deceased died after seven days of examination of the said injury an F.I.R. was registered, that too, on the instance of the P.W. 1 i.e. after a second try. Therefore, this Court finds that the investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer is faulty in nature and cannot be considered credible.

¶51

In the present case, the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and the trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and there is no ground to interfere with the judgment passed by the trial court.

¶52

The Leave to Appeal is accordingly dismissed and consequently the Government Appeal is also dismissed.

¶53

(Zafeer Ahmad,J.) (Rajnish Kumar,J.)

¶54

January 29, 2026 kanhaiya

¶55

Digitally signed by :- KANHAIYA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. v. Rajit Ram Yadav and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. v. Rajit Ram Yadav and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saarthak Sakar Mehrotra and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 2 Others

Rampher Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

Akhilesh Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Nawab Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko. and Others

Richa Gupta and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Munni Bano and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Deptt. Lko. and Others