JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Sajjad Husain, the learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Hari Shanker Vajpayee, the learned A.G.A.-I for the State, as well perused the material available on record.

2. By means of the present appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C., the appellant, Javed Alam, has challenged the judgment and order dated 21.02.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ambedkar Nagar in Session Trial No. 281 of 2016, State Vs. Ram Pratap Yadav and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 83 of 2016, under Sections 308/34, 323/34, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Jalalpur, District Ambedkar Nagar, acquitting the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 from the charges under Section 308/34 I.P.C. framed against them and convicting them for the offence under Sections 323/34, 504, 506 I.P.C. and releasing them on furnishing personal bond of Rs.30,000/- each for probation period.

3. According to the prosecution version, on 18.03.2016 at about 11:00 a.m. when the son of complainant, namely, Javed Alam (present appellant) was coming to his house dragging a cart which was laden by mustard crops, then the fennel crops standing in the field of opposite party No. 1-Ram Pratap, got stuck, on account of which the accused persons started abusing him, thereafter, when the son of complainant was going to his field again for taking crops, the accused persons including Sudhanshu and Kaushalya surrounded him and assaulted him by lathi, danda and iron rod. On shrieks when the complainant and his family members reached at the spot the accused persons fled away from there while threatening the complainant and his other family members. On this written report the case was registered by the police against the accused persons. After the case was committed, the accused persons in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied their guilt and claimed to be tried.

4. The court below after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence available on record, passed the impugned judgment and order dated 21.02.2023.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits court below did not appreciate the evidence on record, prosecution has successfully proved the offence against the accused on the basis of evidence and the impugned judgment was passed without considering the statement of witnesses and the case set up by the prosecution and was passed on surmises and conjectures.

6. Learned A.G.A.-I submits that there appears no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court, therefore, the present appeal may be dismissed.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. and gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court.

8. In the present case from the statements given by the witnesses produced by the prosecution including the injury report of the injured, I found that prosecution has failed to establish that the crime in question has been committed by the accused. There appears no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order, which is before this Court.

9. Further, this Court observed that an appeal against acquittal stands on a different footing from the appeal against conviction. Hon'ble the Apex Court in a very recent judgment in the case of Sadhu Saran Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (2016) 4 SCC 357 has considered this difference and has observed in paragraph nos.20 and 21 as under :

"20. Generally, an appeal against acquittal has always been altogether on a different pedestal from that of an appeal against conviction. In an appeal against acquittal where the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is reinforced, the appellate court would interfere with the order of acquittal only when there is perversity of fact and law. However, we believe that the paramount consideration of the Court is to do substantial justice and avoid miscarriage of justice which can raise by acquitting the accused who is guilty of an