Dismissed¶¶41

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. v. Girish Baheliya

Allahabad HC4 Feb 2026A378D/20/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Rajnish Kumar and Zafeer Ahmad, JJ.), February 4, 2026 — State's application under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C./Section 419 BNSS for leave to appeal against acquittal under Section 307 IPC dismissed. Key terms: leave to appeal against acquittal; hostile injured witness (P.W.1 Kutub Ali); FIR lodged on basis of suspicion (P.W.2 Jalvarsha); material contradiction on identity of assailant; ocular account inconsistent and lacking corroboration; prosecution failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt; acquittal upheld; Government Appeal dismissed; Sessions Trial No.187 of 2018; Case Crime No.555 of 2016; P.S. Bhinga, District Shrawasti/Shravasti.

What did the court decide?

Delay in filing the appeal condoned; leave to appeal refused. ¶¶41

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. vs Girish Baheliya — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Delay in filing the appeal condoned; leave to appeal refused.

¶¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned. +1 more

¶¶10

Court's answer

The cause shown for the delay is sufficient; the application for condonation of delay is allowed and the delay is condoned.

¶¶13

Ratio / Principle

P.W. 1 (Kutub Ali), the injured witness, turned hostile and stated that he had not seen any person firing upon him.

¶¶35

Key takeaways

P.W. 2 (Jalvarsha), the complainant and wife of injured P.W. 4, lodged the report against the accused-respondent on the basis of suspicion and did not see any person firing upon her husband; she did not support the statement of P.W. 4, whose statement that the accused came from behind and fired upon him is therefore not reliable.ratio¶¶38
The material contradiction in the ocular account goes to the root of the prosecution case and substantially erodes the evidentiary value of the testimony on identification of the assailant; the evidence of these witnesses, to the extent it seeks to establish the identity of the accused, does not inspire confidence and cannot be relied upon.ratio¶¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Leave to appeal under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C./419 BNSS against acquittal under Section 307 IPC — State's application against acquittal of Girish Baheliya by Additional Sessions Judge, Shrawasti (Sessions Trial No.187 of 2018, Case Crime No.555 of 2016, P.S. Bhinga, District Shravasti, judgment dated 1.8.2025) — Delay in filing condoned — On merits: P.W.1 (injured witness Kutub Ali) turned hostile and denied seeing the assailant; P.W.2 (complainant, wife of injured P.W.4) admitted the written report was lodged on the basis of suspicion and that she did not see the firing, contradicting P.W.4's version that the accused fired at him from behind with a country-made pistol — Material contradiction on the identity of the assailant goes to the root of the prosecution case and erodes the evidentiary value of the testimony on identification — Evidence of prosecution witnesses on the identity of the accused does not inspire confidence and cannot be relied upon — Prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt; trial court rightly appreciated the evidence and there was no ground to interfere — Leave to Appeal dismissed; Government Appeal consequently dismissed.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 378 DEFECTIVE No. - 20 of 2026

¶3

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

Girish Baheliya	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A. :

¶7

Court No. - 10

¶8

HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J. HON'BLE ZAFEER AHMAD, J.

¶9

C.M. Application No. 1 of 2026 (Application for Condonation of Delay)

¶10

This is an application for condonation of delay in filing appeal duly supported with an affidavit.

¶11

Reasons in detail have been spelt out for condonation of delay.

¶12

Cause shown is sufficient.

¶13

Application for condonation of delay is allowed and the delay is condoned.

¶14

Order on Leave to Appeal

¶15

5.Heard learned A.G.A for the appellant.

¶16

The present Leave to Appeal under Section 378 (3) Cr.P.C/ 419 B.N.S.S is directed against the judgement and order dated 1.8.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shrawasti in Sessions Trial No.187 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No.555 of 2016, under Section 307 Indian Penal Code ( in short IPC), Police Station Bhinga, District Shravasti, whereby accused-respondent Girish Baheliya has been acquitted of the charges by the trial court.

¶17

The prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainanat Jalvarsha (P.W-2) submitted written complaint that the complainant alogwith her husband Kunne had gone to Dahana Tiraha ( trijunction) at about 8.00 in the evening, where the son of Jeth i.e. Girish Baheliya with intention to kill her husband fired with his country made pistol, as a

¶18

A378D No. 20 of 2026

¶19

¶20

result of which, he sustained injuries from pellets on his back and his arms and to Kutub Ali, who was passing from there. Both of them were taken to district hospital by the people of area. This incident was seen by the other people at Dahana Tiraha (trijunction).

¶21

On the basis of complaint, the FIR (Ext. Ka-1) against the accused Girish Baheliya was registered as Case Crime No.555 of 2016 under Section 307 IPC.

¶22

The Investigating Officer conducted the investigation. During investigation, the complainant's statement and the statement of eyewitness were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the Investigation Officer obtained medical report of the injured and prepared a site plan (Ext. Ka-6). During investigation after collecting several material against the accused Girish Baheliya, a charge sheet under Section 307 IPC (Ext. Ka7) was submitted before the court concerned.

¶23

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

¶24

P.W-1 Kutub Ali, P.W-2 Jalvarsha alias Kailasha, P.W-3 Dr. Fadindra Kumar Tiwari, P.W-4 Kunne, P.W-5 Head Constable, Raj Kumar Tiwari, P.W-6 Investigating Officer Naveen Kumar Mishra, P.W-7 Sub Inspector Anoopmani Tripathi. The prosecution also placed on record and proved documentary evidence as Ext. Ka-1 to Ext. Ka-8.

¶25

The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, wherein he stated that he is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in this case. He also stated to adduce evidence, but no evidence has been produced by the defence.

¶26

P.W.1 Kutub Ali, who is injured witness, in his examination-inchief has deposed that he sustained two injuries from the pellets but he had not seen any person to fire upon him and he has turned hostile.

¶27

P.W-.2 Jalvarsha, who is wife of the injured Kunne, has deposed in her examination-in -chief that at about 8.00 PM, she alongwith her husband Kunne had gone to Dahana Tiraha (trijunction) to purchase some goods and while returning from the market she heard the sound of explosion and an unknown person, who had committed this incident was fleeing from the spot, whom she did not recognize.

¶28

A378D No. 20 of 2026

¶29

¶30

She deposed that she lodged the report against the accused respondent on the basis of suspicion. She also deposed that in the said incident her husband i.e. P.W. 4 and one Kutub Ali P.W. 1 had sustained injuries. Thus P.W-2 has not supported her written report. 14. P.W-.3 Dr. Fadindra Kumar Tiwari in his examination-in-chief deposed that on 10.04.2016 he was posted as EMO at Combined District Hospital and at about 8.25 PM injured Kutub Ali had come with Shaukat Ali and Kunne was brought with his wife Jalvarsha and he conducted the medical examination of both the injured persons.

¶31

P.W-4 Kunne, who is injured witness, in his examination-inchief, has deposed that about five years ago he alongwith his wife had gone to Dahana Tiraha (trijunction) to recharge his mobile then suddenly the accused respondent Girish Baheliya had come from back and fired upon him by his countrymade pistol. At that time, one Kutub Ali, who was passing from there also sustained injuries from the same pistol and both of them were taken to the District Hospital.

¶32

P.W.-5 Sri Raj Kumar Tiwari, Head Constable, is the formal witness and has proved the written report.

¶33

P.W.-6 Naveen Kumar Mishra, Investigating Officer, conducted the investigation and submitted the chargesheet against the accused respondent.

¶34

P.W.-7 Anoopmani Tripathi, Sub Inspector is a formal witness and proved the docuemnts relied upon by the prosecution.

¶35

From persual of the evidence and material available on record, this Court finds that the P.W. 1 is the injured witness in this case but he turned hostile in this case by stating that he had not seen any person firing upon him. P.W. 2 is the complainant in this case and she registered the complaint specifically naming the accused respondent but in examination-in-chief she has stated that she had lodged the report against the accused respondent on the basis of suspicion and she had not seen any person firing upon her husband i.e. P.W. 4. is also injured witness in this case and he has stated that the accused respondent Girish Baheliya had come from back and fired upon him by his country-made pistol but the P.W. 2 who is wife of the P.W. 4 and was present at the place of

¶36

A378D No. 20 of 2026

¶37

¶38

occurrence has stated that she had not seen any person firing upon her husband and she lodged the report on the basis of suspicion. The statement of the P.W. 4 is not reliable as the P.W. 4 has stated that the accused respondent came from back and fired upon him and the P.W. 2 being wife and eye-witness in this case has not supported the statement of the P.W. 4.

¶39

This material contradiction goes to the root of the prosecution case and substantially erodes the evidentiary value of the testimony on the aspect of identification of the assailant. Furthermore, another material prosecution witness has also turned hostile on the question as to who inflicted the injuries. In such circumstances, where the ocular account is inconsistent and lacks corroboration on a crucial fact in issue, it would be unsafe to place reliance upon such testimonies for sustaining the prosecution version. Accordingly, the evidence of these witnesses, to the extent it seeks to establish the identity of the accused does not inspire confidence and cannot be relied upon.

¶40

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.

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

February 4, 2026

¶44

Shahnaz

¶45

Digitally signed by :- SHAHNAZ BANO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. v. Girish Baheliya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. v. Girish Baheliya

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

Smt. Khushi and another vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Home and 3 others

Kuldeep Kumar Mishra and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Shimala vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Others

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. vs Suresh

Kuldeep Gaud vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. vs Raju Chauhan and 4 Others