# Sanjay Kumar v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 11 ILRA 1327
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-11-17
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Application U/S 419 BNSS No. 230 of 2025
- **Bench:** Rajeev Misra, Dr. Ajay Kumar-Ii
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sanjay-kumar-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52748
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

G.A.

Issue for Consideration
i. Whether the inference drawn by Court below
that there is material contradiction the nature of
injuries sustained injured/complainant and his
oral evidence, is legally sustainable.

ii. Whether in the facts and circumstances of
the case, the prosecution of the accused cannot
be sustained on the ground of unexplained
delay of 16 days in initiating the criminal
proceeding.

iii. Whether reasons recorded by Court below in
support of its conclusion that prosecution has
failed to establish the guilt of accused beyond
reasonable doubt, are cogent and valid reasons
or illusionary and against the weight of evidence
on record, therefore, illegal and perverse.

Head Notes
The
Bharatiya
Nagarik
Suraksha
Sanhita,2023- Section 419, The Indian
Penal Code,1860- Sections 307, 323, 504
and 506- The testimony of a sole injured
witness is given significant weight, but
not
automatically
accepted,
as
his
presence at the scene alone is established
by his injuries. However, the conviction
can be sustained if the injured witness's
evidence
is
cogent,
reliable,
and
consistent, inspiring confidence and free
from major contradictions. In the case of a
sole eye witness, the witness has to be
reliable,
trustworthy,
his
testimony
worthy of credence and the case proven
beyond
reasonable
doubt.
Unnatural
conduct and unexplained circumstances
can be a ground for disbelieving the
witness- If two views are possible, one
supporting acquittal and other indicating
conviction, the High Court should not, in
such a situation, reverse the order of
acquittal recorded by Court below-Appeal
dismissed.
Held-
(i) Court below rightly come to the conclusion
that there are material contradictions in injuries
as mentioned in injury report and deposition of
complainant.

(ii) The prosecution of accused opposite party-2
cannot
be
sustained
on
the
ground
of
unexplained delay of 16 days in initiating
criminal proceedings.

(iii) The testimony of sole interested material
witness
injured
P.W.-1,
in
absence
of
corroboration from any other cogent evidence;
when such testimony is embedded with material
contradictions, severe infirmities and inherent
improbabilities; cannot be made basis for
conviction of accused for offences alleged.(Para
16, 21, 27, 32 & 38)
Appeal dismissed. (E-15)

Case Law Cited
Bharwad Jakshibhai Nagjibahi and others vs.
State of Gujarat, (1995) 5 SCC 602; Babu
Sahebagouda
Rudragoudar
Vs.
State
of
Karnataka, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 561; Gamini
Bala Koteshwara Rao vs. State of Andra
Pradesh, (2009) 10 SCC 636; Thaman Kumar vs.
State of Union Territory of Chandigarh (2003) 6
SC 380; Thulia Kali vs. State of Tamil Nadu
(1972) 3 SCC 393; Mehraj Singh vs. State of
U.P. 1994 5 SCC 186; Kishan Singh vs. State of
Punjab (2008) 16 SCC 73; P. Ramchandra Rao
Vs. State of Karnataka, (2002) 4 SCC 578;
1328 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Rajagopal and others Vs. The State of Tamil
Nadu, AIR 2019 SC 2866; Hasmukhlal D. Vora
and Another Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu,2022
SCC OnLine 1732; Sekaran Vs. State of Tamil
Nadu, (2024) 2 SCC 176; Shivendra Pratap
Singh Thakur @ Banti Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 938; Rajesh
Patel Vs. State of Jharkhand, (2013) 13 SCC
791; Lallu Manjhi vs. State of Jharkhand (2003)
2 SCC 401; Muluwa vs. State of M.P., AIR 1976
SC 989;

List of Acts
The Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023, The Indian Penal Code,1860

List of Keywords
Material contradictions; Injuries mentioned in
injury report and deposition of complainant;
Unnatural
conduct
and
unexplained
circumstance;
ground
for
disbelieving
the
witness

Case Arising From
Judgment
dated
15.09.2025
passed
by
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.
18, Agra in Sessions Trial No. 1823 of 2022,
State vs. Anand Kumar and Others, under
Sections 307, 323, 504 and 506 IPC, Police
Station Tajganj, District Agra, whereby the
accused-opposite parties 2 to 4 have been
acquitted by Court below of the charges framed
a

## Text

11 All. Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1327

25. Writ petition fails and is hereby
dismissed.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 1327
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J.
THE HON'BLE DR. AJAY KUMAR-II, J.

Criminal Misc. Application U/S 419 BNSS No.
230 of 2025

Sanjay Kumar ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Jata Shankar Pandey

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Issue for Consideration
i. Whether the inference drawn by Court below
that there is material contradiction the nature of
injuries sustained injured/complainant and his
oral evidence, is legally sustainable.

ii. Whether in the facts and circumstances of
the case, the prosecution of the accused cannot
be sustained on the ground of unexplained
delay of 16 days in initiating the criminal
proceeding.

iii. Whether reasons recorded by Court below in
support of its conclusion that prosecution has
failed to establish the guilt of accused beyond
reasonable doubt, are cogent and valid reasons
or illusionary and against the weight of evidence
on record, therefore, illegal and perverse.

Head Notes
The
Bharatiya
Nagarik
Suraksha
Sanhita,2023- Section 419, The Indian
Penal Code,1860- Sections 307, 323, 504
and 506- The testimony of a sole injured
witness is given significant weight, but
not
automatically
accepted,
as
his
presence at the scene alone is established
by his injuries. However, the conviction
can be sustained if the injured witness's
evidence
is
cogent,
reliable,
and
consistent, inspiring confidence and free
from major contradictions. In the case of a
sole eye witness, the witness has to be
reliable,
trustworthy,
his
testimony
worthy of credence and the case proven
beyond
reasonable
doubt.
Unnatural
conduct and unexplained circumstances
can be a ground for disbelieving the
witness- If two views are possible, one
supporting acquittal and other indicating
conviction, the High Court should not, in
such a situation, reverse the order of
acquittal recorded by Court below-Appeal
dismissed.
Held-
(i) Court below rightly come to the conclusion
that there are material contradictions in injuries
as mentioned in injury report and deposition of
complainant.

(ii) The prosecution of accused opposite party-2
cannot
be
sustained
on
the
ground
of
unexplained delay of 16 days in initiating
criminal proceedings.

(iii) The testimony of sole interested material
witness
injured
P.W.-1,
in
absence
of
corroboration from any other cogent evidence;
when such testimony is embedded with material
contradictions, severe infirmities and inherent
improbabilities; cannot be made basis for
conviction of accused for offences alleged.(Para
16, 21, 27, 32 & 38)
Appeal dismissed. (E-15)

Case Law Cited
Bharwad Jakshibhai Nagjibahi and others vs.
State of Gujarat, (1995) 5 SCC 602; Babu
Sahebagouda
Rudragoudar
Vs.
State
of
Karnataka, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 561; Gamini
Bala Koteshwara Rao vs. State of Andra
Pradesh, (2009) 10 SCC 636; Thaman Kumar vs.
State of Union Territory of Chandigarh (2003) 6
SC 380; Thulia Kali vs. State of Tamil Nadu
(1972) 3 SCC 393; Mehraj Singh vs. State of
U.P. 1994 5 SCC 186; Kishan Singh vs. State of
Punjab (2008) 16 SCC 73; P. Ramchandra Rao
Vs. State of Karnataka, (2002) 4 SCC 578;
1328 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Rajagopal and others Vs. The State of Tamil
Nadu, AIR 2019 SC 2866; Hasmukhlal D. Vora
and Another Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu,2022
SCC OnLine 1732; Sekaran Vs. State of Tamil
Nadu, (2024) 2 SCC 176; Shivendra Pratap
Singh Thakur @ Banti Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 938; Rajesh
Patel Vs. State of Jharkhand, (2013) 13 SCC
791; Lallu Manjhi vs. State of Jharkhand (2003)
2 SCC 401; Muluwa vs. State of M.P., AIR 1976
SC 989;

List of Acts
The Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023, The Indian Penal Code,1860

List of Keywords
Material contradictions; Injuries mentioned in
injury report and deposition of complainant;
Unnatural
conduct
and
unexplained
circumstance;
ground
for
disbelieving
the
witness

Case Arising From
Judgment
dated
15.09.2025
passed
by
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.
18, Agra in Sessions Trial No. 1823 of 2022,
State vs. Anand Kumar and Others, under
Sections 307, 323, 504 and 506 IPC, Police
Station Tajganj, District Agra, whereby the
accused-opposite parties 2 to 4 have been
acquitted by Court below of the charges framed
against them.

Appearances for Parties
Counsel for Appellant Jata Shankar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent G.A.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Ajay Kumar-II, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Jata Shankar Pandey, the
learned counsel for appellant, the learned
A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1.

2. Challenge in this Criminal Appeal is to
the judgment dated 15.09.2025 passed by
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court
No. 18, Agra in Sessions Trial No. 1823 of
2022, State vs. Anand Kumar and Others, under
Sections 307, 323, 504 and 506 IPC, Police
Station Tajganj, District Agra, whereby the
accused-opposite parties 2 to 4 have been
acquitted by Court below of the charges framed
against them.

3. Brief facts of the case are that on
28.05.2018, at about 5:30/5:45 p.m., the
complainant Sanjay Kumar was going at his
work place, as usual, as soon as he reached near
the house of accused persons, all the accused
persons (opposite parties 2 to 4) surrounded the
complainant, opposite party 4 Anand Kumar
took out his knife and by brandishing his knife
remarked that he will not leave him alive, at
this, other accused persons, (opposite parties 2
to 4) started beating the complainant with kicks
and fist, and then opposite party 4 tried to give a
knife blow on the chest of the complainant, the
complainant saved his chest by forwarding his
left hand, at this, he received serious injuries on
his left hand. On hearing the screams of
complainant, the witnesses, Jagvir, Anil Kumar,
Krishna Kumar and Vipin Kumar came there
and saw the incident, thereafter, all the accusedopposite parties 2 to 4 ran away from the spot
by extending threats. The injured complainant
approached
Police
Station
Tajganj
for
registration of the FIR but his report was not
lodged. Thereafter, the complainant filed a
complaint in Court.

4. On the aforementioned complaint of
appellant
against
the
accused
persons,
Complaint Case No. 1485 of 2018, under
Sections 307, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC, Police
Station Tajganj, District Agra was registered.
After
recording
the
statements
of
the
complainant and his witnesses, the A.C.J.M.,
Court No.3, Agra, summoned the accusedopposite parties 2 to 4 to face trial under
Sections 307, 323, 504, 506 IPC.

5. The accused-opposite parties 2 to 4
appeared
before
the
jurisdictional
magistrate. Subsequently, the case was
11 All. Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1329
committed to the Court of Sessions. After
hearing both the parties, charges were
framed against them on 30.07.2019, under
Sections 307, 323, 504, 506 of IPC. The
accused pleaded not guilty and claimed
trial.

6. In order to prove it's case,
prosecution
adduced
two
witnesses,
namely,
P.W.-1
Sanjay
Kumar
(the
complainant) and P.W.-2 Dr. K.C. Dhakar
(Doctor who had medico legally examined
the complainant).

7. After completion of the prosecution
evidence, the statement of the accused
persons (opposite parties 2 to 4) were
recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C., they
denied the charges as alleged by the
prosecution and claimed for trial. They
stated that P.W.-1 has given false evidence
against them on account of previous enmity
of egress/ingress regarding the pathway.

8. By the impugned judgment dated
15.09.2025, Court below has acquitted the
accused-opposite parties 2 to 4 of the
charges under Sections 307, 323, 504 and
506 of IPC.

9. Thus, feeling aggrieved by the
impugned judgment passed by Court
below, the present criminal appeal has been
preferred by the complainant-appellant.

10. Mr. Jata Shankar Pandey, the
learned counsel for appellant submits that the
impugned judgment is illegal and erroneous
and, therefore, liable to be set-aside by this
Court. He further submits that Court below
without appreciating the evidence adduced by
the
injured
complainant-appellant,
has
illegally and erroneously, acquitted the
accused-opposite parties 2 to 4 of the charges
levelled against them. The prosecution
version also stand corroborated by the
medical evidence, but Court below by
ignoring the same, has reached at the
conclusion that no case as alleged by the
prosecution, is made out against the accused
opposite parties, hence, wrongly acquitted
them. As such, the impugned judgment is
illegal and perverse and therefore, liable to be
set-aside by this Court.

11. Learned A.G.A. for State-opposite
party-1 has vehemently opposed the present
appeal by submitting that the impugned
judgment passed by Court below does not
suffer from any illegality of law or fact much
less a legal error so as to warrant interference
by this Court. Court below has examined the
evidence of sole injured witness and after
analyzing his evidence, in the light of the
ocular and documentary medical evidence,
has rightly arrived at the conclusion that the
evidence given by the complainant-appellant
is suspicious. No other witness of the incident
was produced by the prosecution, inspite of
fact that in pre-summoning evidence, the
complainant-appellant earlier got examined
P.W.-1 Vipin and P.W.-2 Anil Kumar as
independent witnesses. Court below has thus,
rightly acquitted the accused persons. Lastly,
it has been urged that no ground to interfere
in the impugned judgment is made out,
therefore, learned A.G.A. urged for the
dismissal of present appeal.

12. We have heard the learned counsel
for complainant-appellant as well as the
learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1
and perused the record.

13. The trial Court while acquitting the
accused-opposite parties 2 to 4, has
recorded the following findings:

(i) The incident took place on
28.05.2018 at about 05:30/5:45 p.m. but
1330 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the complainant did not submit any written
report at the police station concerned
regarding the incident in question.

(ii) The complainant has stated
that his three fingers were cut in the
incident whereas only one injury of incised
wound was found in one of his fingers,
therefore, his version of the incident was
not supported by the medical evidence.

(iii)
There
are
material
contradictions in the nature of injuries
alleged to have been sustained by the
injured and medico-legal examination
report.

(iv) The complainant-appellant
failed to adduce any other witness
regarding the incident and the place of
occurrence.

(v) The accused-opposite parties
2 to 4 had called the police by giving a
phone call on dial 100 and the Police
arrived at the spot. Thereafter, proceedings
under section 107/116 Cr.P.C. were
initiated against both the parties. The
complainant-appellant as well as accusedopposite parties have obtained bail in the
aforesaid
proceedings,
but
the
complainant-appellant did not disclose
these
facts
in
his
complaint
and
examination-in-chief. The complainant has
admitted in his cross-examination that he
was challaned under section 107/116
Cr.P.C. and was also bailed out in same.

(vi) The complainant-appellant
has admitted that accused-opposite party 3
was also medically examined meaning
thereby that accused Atul also received
injuries in the incident.

(vii) The complainant-appellant
has moved the complaint after about 16
days of the alleged incident and no
satisfactory explanation has been offered
regarding lodging complaint with such
inordinate delay.

(vii) The above circumstances
also not support the prosecution story.

14. After recording above findings,
Court below came to the conclusion that
prosecution has failed to prove the charges
levelled against
the accused persons
beyond all reasonable doubt and thus
acquitted them.

15. Thus, feeling aggrieved by the
impugned
judgment
dated
15.09.2025
passed by Court below, the complainantappellant has now approached this Court by
means of aforementioned criminal appeal.

16. While considering the scope of
interference in an appeal against acquittal,
it has been held by the Supreme Court that
if two views are possible, one supporting
acquittal and other indicating conviction,
the High Court should not, in such a
situation, reverse the order of acquittal
recorded by Court below. Reference in this
regard be made to the judgment of Supreme
Court in Bharwad Jakshibhai Nagjibahi
and others vs. State of Gujarat, (1995) 5
SCC 602, which is most appropriately
applicable to the facts of the present case.
Paragraph-9 of the report is relevant for the
controversy in hand and is accordingly,
reproduced herein-below:-

" Law is now well settled that
though the Cr.P.C. does not make any
distinction between the powers of the
Appellate Court while dealing with an
order of conviction or of acquittal,
normally the Appellate Court does not
disturb an order of acquittal in a case
where two views of the evidence are
reasonably
possible.
But
the
above
principle is not applicable where the
approach of the trial Judge in dealing
with evidence is manifestly erroneous and
11 All. Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1331
the
conclusions
drawn
are
wholly
unreasonably and perverse. In the instant
case, we find that the High Court was
fully conscious and did not transgress the
bounds, of its appellate powers while
dealing and reversing the order of
acquittal."

17. While dealing with an appeal
against acquittal the Apex Court in Babu
Sahebagouda Rudragoudar Vs. State of
Karnataka, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 561,
has observed as under:

"39. Thus, it is beyond the pale
of doubt that the scope of interference by
an appellate Court for reversing the
judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial
Court in favour of the accused has to be
exercised within the four corners of the
following principles:-

(a)
That
the
judgment
of
acquittal suffers from patent perversity;

(b) That the same is based on a
misreading/omission to consider material
evidence on record;

(c) That no two reasonable views
are possible and only the view consistent
with the guilt of the accused is possible
from the evidence available on record.

40. The appellate Court, in order
to interfere with the judgment of acquittal
would have to record pertinent findings on
the above factors if it is inclined to reverse
the judgment of acquittal rendered by the
trial Court."

18. It has also been observed in abovementioned judgment that an Appellate
Court, however, must bear in mind that in
case
of
acquittal,
there
is
double
presumption in favour of accused. Firstly,
the presumption of innocence is available
to him under the fundamental principle of
criminal jurisprudence that every person
shall be presumed to be innocent unless he
is proved guilty by a competent court of
law. Secondly, the accused having secured
his acquittal, the presumption of his
innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed
and strengthened by Court below. It has
further been observed that the Appellate
Court can interfere with the order of
acquittal only if it comes to a finding that
the only conclusion, which can be recorded
on the basis of the evidence on record was
that the guilt of the accused was proved
beyond all reasonable doubts and no other
conclusion was possible.

19. The Supreme Court in Gamini
Bala Koteshwara Rao vs. State of Andra
Pradesh, (2009) 10 SCC 636, has
observed that interference in an appeal
against acquittal should be rare and in
exceptional circumstance. It was further
held that it is open to the High Court to
reappraise the evidence and conclusion
arrived at by Court below. However, it is
limited to those cases where the judgment
of Court below was perverse. Apex Court
went to declare that the word "perverse", as
understood in law, has been understood to
mean, "against the weight of evidence". If
there are two views and Court below has
taken one of the views merely because
another view in plausible, the Appellant
Court will not be justified in interfering
with the verdict of acquittal.

20. Having heard the learned counsel
for complainant-appellant, the learned
A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 upon
evaluation of the impugned judgment
including the reasons recorded therein, in
the light of deposition of the sole injured
witness i.e. complainant-appellant and
keeping in mind the limitation with a Court
of appeal dealing with a judgment of
acquittal, this Court finds that following
1332 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
three questions arise for consideration in
present appeal:

i. Whether the inference drawn by
Court below
that
there
is
material
contradiction in the nature of injuries
sustained by the injured/complainant and
his oral evidence, is legally sustainable.

ii. Whether in the facts and
circumstances of the case, the prosecution
of the accused cannot be sustained on the
ground of unexplained delay of 16 days in
initiating the criminal proceeding.

iii. Whether reasons recorded by
Court below in support of it's conclusion
that prosecution has failed to establish the
guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt,
are cogent and valid reasons or illusionary
and against the weight of evidence on
record, therefore, illegal and perverse.

21. The present case is based on the
sole testimony of injured complainantappellant Sanjay Kumar P.W.-1. The
injured complainant-appellant in his crossexamination (as recorded in paragraph 14
of the impugned judgment) has stated that
his three fingers were cut by the knife and
his cut injuries were also stitched. From the
testimony of P.W.-1 as well as from a plain
reading of complaint also, it is apparent
that only one blow of knife was there,
resulting in three fingers of complainant
being cut. Perusal of medical evidence as
analysed in the impugned judgment reveals
that the injured complainant-appellant got
five visible injuries on his body, first injury
was of lacerated wound found on his index
finger, second injury was of lacerated
wound found on his middle finger, third
injury was of incised wound found on his
ring finger, fourth injury was of contusion
found on his head and fifth injury was of
contusion found on his chest. The injured
reported pain in his stomach, which was
recorded as injury no.6. Injury nos. 4 and 6
were found to be simple in nature and rest
of the injuries were kept under observation.
However,
no
supplementary
report
regarding injury nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 was
placed before Court below. In the opinion
of the Dr. K.C. Dhaker, P.W.-5 who had
examined the injured except injury no. 3 all
other injuries were likely to be caused by
some hard and blunt object, whereas injury
no. 3 was likely to be caused by some sharp
edged weapon. In our opinion, lacerated
wounds may have been caused by stones or
bricks but, it is not the case of prosecution.
Injured complainant himself has stated that
accused were trying to ground him, but he
did not fall. It is not the case of prosecution
that injured complainant fell down on road,
therefore, possibility of getting injuries of
laceration is again ruled out. In our
considered opinion, the version of manner
of incident as narrated by the complainant
does not find support from medical
evidence available on record. The Court
below relied upon the judgment of
Supreme Court in Thaman Kumar vs.
State of Union Territory of Chandigarh
(2003) 6 SC 380, wherein Apex Court had
laid
down
the
parameters
regarding
appreciation and examination of ocular
version
and
medical
evidence.
Accordingly, Court below has discussed in
detail the contrast emerging in the ocular
version and medical evidence after a
parallel is drawn. Court below has,
therefore rightly come to the conclusion
that there are material contradictions in
injuries as mentioned in injury report and
deposition of complainant. The finding so
recorded by Court below, is legally
sustainable. Therefore, question no.1 is
answered in the affirmative.

22. As per prosecution story, the
alleged incident took place on 28.05.2018
11 All. Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1333
and the complaint in this regard has been
instituted on 12.06.2018 with delay of 16
days. The Court below in paragraph-16 of
the impugned judgment came to the
conclusion that no justifiable explanation
for explaining the delay in filing the
complaint
has
come
forward.
The
complainant-appellant has not produced
any written application/Tehrir, which might
have been given at concerned Police
Station for registration of FIR. An effort
was made to explain the delay by stating
that the complainant-appellant went to the
Police Station Tajganj but no FIR was
registered
there,
and
thereafter
an
information
was
sent
to
the
S.S.P.
However, when no action was taken
thereon, only then a complaint was filed
before Court below. A photocopy of the
alleged application dated 01.06.2018 was
brought on record which was allegedly sent
to S.S.P. concerned. However, the said
application was also not proved. For the
sake of arguments, even if it is presumed
that the said application was moved by the
complainant on 01.06.2018, still there is
unexplained delay of 11 days in filing the
complaint.

23. In the light of above and by placing
reliance upon the judgments of Apex Court in
(i). Thulia Kali vs. State of Tamil Nadu
(1972) 3 SCC 393, (ii). Mehraj Singh vs.
State of U.P. 1994 5 SCC 186, (iii). Kishan
Singh vs. State of Punjab (2008) 16 SCC
73, Court below has rightly observed that if
the FIR has been lodged with delay, but no
plausible explanation has come forward
explaining the delay in lodging the FIR, then
the criminal prosecution of an accused on the
basis of such a delayed FIR cannot be
sustained.

24. We may further add that Apex
Court in (i). P. Ramchandra Rao Vs.
State of Karnataka, (2002) 4 SCC 578,
(ii). P. Rajagopal and others Vs. The
State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2019 SC 2866
(paragraph 8), (iii). Hasmukhlal D. Vora
and Another Vs. The State of Tamil
Nadu,2022 SCC OnLine 1732, (iv).
Sekaran Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2024)
2 SCC 176 and (v) Shivendra Pratap
Singh Thakur @ Banti Vs. State of
Chhattisgarh and Others, 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 938, has clearly observed that
if the FIR has been lodged with delay but
no plausible explanation has come forward
explaining the delay in lodging the FIR,
then the criminal prosecution of an accused
on the basis of such a delayed FIR, cannot
be sustained.

25. In the case of Shivendra Pratap
Singh Thakur (Supra), the Apex Court
quashed
the
criminal
prosecution
of
accused therein on the ground that there is
an unexplained delay of 39 days in lodging
the FIR. At the time of hearing of this
appeal, we pointed out the aforesaid aspect
and how the conclusion drawn by Court
below on the question of delay is sought to
be dislodged. Learned counsel for appellant
simply contended that since the trial itself
has concluded the question of delay is now
irrelevant.

26. The Apex Court in the case of
Rajesh Patel Vs. State of Jharkhand,
(2013) 13 SCC 791 quashed the conviction
of accused therein on the ground that there
is an unexplained delay of 11 days in
lodging the FIR.

27. In view of above, the conclusion
drawn by the Court below that the FIR has
been lodged belatedly and the delay in
lodging the FIR has not been explained
sufficiently is an adverse circumstance
against the prosecution. The same cannot
1334 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
be said to be illegal or perverse. Therefore,
we are of the considered opinion that point
of
delay
in
initiating
the
criminal
proceeding has been rightly considered by
Court below and the conclusion drawn is a
lawful
conclusion
based
upon
due
appreciation of evidence. Therefore, in
such a circumstance, the prosecution of
accused
opposite
party-2
cannot
be
sustained on the ground of unexplained
delay of 16 days in initiating criminal
proceedings. Question no. 2 is also
answered in the affirmative.

28. Court below has also referred to
the judgments of Supreme Court in (i).
Lallu Manjhi vs. State of Jharkhand (2003)
2 SCC 401, wherein it has been held that
prosecution of an accused on the basis of
testimony of sole injured witness can be
sustained provided his testimony is not
inconsistent with the medical evidence or
suffers
from
serious
infirmities
and
contradictions and (ii). Muluwa vs. State
of M.P., AIR 1976 SC 989, wherein
Court
held
that
in
absence
of
corroboration, it is unsafe to convict an
accused on the basis of medical evidence.
Considering the aforesaid caution given
by Supreme Court, Court below analysed
the oral and medical evidence on record.
It thereafter came to the conclusion that
there was contradiction in the nature of
injuries alleged to have been sustained by
the injured and his medico-legal report.
No other witness was produced regarding
the incident and place of incident. The
Police initiated the proceeding under
Section 107/116 Cr.P.C. against the
complainant-appellant also. No justifiable
explanation
has
been
offered
for
explaining the delay in initiating criminal
proceedings.
These
are
such
circumstances, which are not supporting
the prosecution story and therefore, the
prosecution has failed to prove the
charges levelled against the accused.

29. So far as the veracity of above
reasons recorded by Court below to
conclude that the conviction of accused
does
not
stand
established
beyond
reasonable doubt also cannot be said to
be
illegal
or
perverse.
The
findings/reasons returned by Court below
are based upon due evaluation of
allegations made in the complaint in the
light of evidence on record. Court below
has assigned specific reasons for coming
to the conclusion that no offence under
any of charging Section is made out
against accused. Upon examination by us
of the said findings in the light of
depositions of the prosecution witnesses
as noted in the impugned judgment, we
could not come across of any such fact on
the basis of which, any of the findings
qua the charging sections can be said to
be
illegal,
perverse
or
erroneous,
inasmuch as the complainant himself
could not prove the very story which he
set out to prove against accused by his
own evidence. As such, the conclusion
drawn by Court below that no criminality
as alleged to have been committed by the
accused-opposite parties 2 to 4 is borne
out from the record is neither illegal nor
perverse.

30. Out of abundant caution, we have
examined the depositions of P.W.-1 and
P.W.-2 threadbare for seeking answer to
question no. 3. Present case is based on the
sole testimony of the injured complainantappellant. No other witness of incidence
and or place of occurrence was produced
by the prosecution before Court below. The
complainant-appellant
in
his
presummoning evidence got examined P.W.1-
Vipin and P.W.-2 Anil Kumar under
11 All. Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1335
section 202 Cr.P.C., but during the course
of trial, both those witnesses were got
discharged. The fate of present case thus
rests upon the sole testimony of injured
complainant-appellant.

31. The law is well settled that the
testimony of a single injured witness can
be sufficient for conviction, if it is
credible, trustworthy, and corroborated
by other evidence. The testimony of an
injured witness is given particular
weight because such a witness is less
likely to falsely implicate an accused,
especially if the testimony is consistent
and supported by medical or other
evidence.
Criminal
jurisprudence
attaches great weightage to the evidence
of such a witness as it presumes that he is
speaking
the
truth
unless
shown
otherwise and the testimony of such a
witness is generally considered to be very
reliable, as he is a witness that comes
with a built-in guarantee of his presence
at the scene of the crime and is unlikely
to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to
falsely implicate someone.

32. The testimony of a sole injured
witness is given significant weight, but
not automatically accepted, as his
presence
at
the
scene
alone
is
established by his injuries. However,
the conviction can be sustained if the
injured witness's evidence is cogent,
reliable,
and
consistent,
inspiring
confidence
and
free
from
major
contradictions. In the case of a sole
eye witness, the witness has to be
reliable, trustworthy, his testimony
worthy of credence and the case
proven
beyond
reasonable
doubt.
Unnatural conduct and unexplained
circumstances can be a ground for
disbelieving the witness.

33. In the present case there is a sole
injured witness of the incident. His
evidence is to be evaluated with caution
and circumspection on the touchstone of
the evidence tendered by other witnesses
and the other evidence on record. It is
true that evidence of injured witness has
to be placed at higher pedestal, however,
this principle may not apply to a case
when the accused is also injured. Injury
on the person of a witness may be a
guarantee of his presence on the spot,
but it is no guarantee of the truth of his
deposition.

34. As per medico-legal examination
report, the medical evidence is not
supporting the version as narrated by the
injured complainant P.W.-1. However, no
supplementary report was brought before
Court below.

35. Perusal of the injuries as narrated
by Dr. K.C. Dhakar, P.W.-5 the doctor who
has medically examined the injured, reveals
that nature of the injuries is neither
grievous nor fatal. As there is no
supplementary report available on record,
the
injuries
so
sustained
by
the
complainant-appellant seems to be simple
in nature. The injuries were not such that
injured P.W.-1 could not immediately go to
police station. Here, in the case in hand,
there is absolutely no explanation for the
delay at any stage, what to say, of plausible
explanation. The delay, therefore, renders
the circumstances questionable. This nonexplanation
is,
thus,
fatal
for
the
prosecution.

36. It is apparent that it was accusedopposite parties 2 to 4 who had called the
Police and the Police came on the spot on
their call. Even proceedings under section
107/116 Cr.P.C. were also initiated against
1336 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the
complainant-appellant
but
this
important fact has been concealed by the
complainant-appellant in his complaint.

37. The injured complainant has
admitted in his cross-examination that
accused-opposite party 3 Atul was also
medically examined meaning thereby that
Atul also sustained injuries in the incident
but this fact has been concealed by the
injured complainant in his complaint as
well as in his examination-in-chief. The
complainant is completely silent on this
aspect in his examination-in-chief. This
fact of accused Atul sustaining injuries
raises suspicion qua the version brought
forward by the complainant-appellant.
Therefore,
the
testimony
of
the
complainant-appellant Sanjay Kumar P.W.-
1, who is the sole injured witness in the
case, has been rightly discredited by Court
below in paragraph-14 of the impugned
judgment.

38. When read as a whole, the
testimony of injured P.W.-1 can be
classified in category of "neither wholly
reliable
nor
wholly
unreliable".
The
testimony of sole injured witness P.W.-1 is
embedded with material contradictions,
severe
infirmities
and
inherent
improbabilities as mentioned above. It
would be extremely hazardous to convict
the accused on the premise of neither
wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable
testimony of injured P.W.-1. The testimony
of sole interested material witness injured
P.W.-1, in absence of corroboration from
any other cogent evidence; when such
testimony is embedded with material
contradictions,
severe
infirmities
and
inherent improbabilities; cannot be made
basis for conviction of accused for offences
alleged. Therefore, reasons recorded by
Court below in support of it's conclusion
that prosecution has failed to establish the
guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt,
are cogent and valid reasons. Question no.
3 is answered accordingly.

39. In view of the discussion made
above, we do not find any perversity in the
judgment so as to interfere with the
findings returned by Court below. The
conclusion drawn by Court below is the
outcome of due appreciation of evidence on
record. No misreading or omission could be
pointed out by the learned counsel for
appellant. Being the last Court of fact, we
have ourselves evaluated the evidence on
record to find out whether there is any
perversity in the impugned judgment or
Court below has misconstrued any material
evidence. However, we could not gather any
new fact from the record so as to conclude
that the conclusion drawn by Court below is
against the weight of evidence on record. It
thus, cannot be said that only the view
consistent with the guilt of accused is
possible as per the evidence on record. We,
therefore, do not find any good ground to
entertain the present appeal filed under
Section 413 BNSS, which consequently fails
and is, accordingly dismissed.
---------
(2025) 11 ILRA 1336
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 27.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 9706 of 2025
& 9802 of 2025

Shri Kamal Agrawal (M.D.) ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants: