'Invariably Reproduce Injury Details From Medical Reports In Judgments': Allahabad High Court Directs Trial Courts In UP

A bench of Justice Rajeev Misra and Justice Dr. Ajay kumar-II said that it was 'pained' to observe that trial courts were omitting this crucial forensic detail in their orders despite there being longstanding administrative circulars requiring them to do the same.

The direction was issued as the bench dismissed a Criminal Appeal filed against the acquittal of a dowry-accused husband.

In this case, the High Court noted a significant lapse in the judgment delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C. Court No. 1, Ghazipur wherein while the accused was acquitted, the final judgment failed to mention the specific injuries found on the body of the deceased.

Taking a serious view of this omission, the High Court observed:

"We are pained to observe that Trial Judge has not mentioned in the impugned judgment, the injuries found on the body of the deceased, whereas Circular Letter No. 13/VIb-47 dated: 3rd March, 2002 & Circular Letter No. 13/VIb-47 dated 3rd March, 1982 of High Court clearly directs the Judicial Officers to invariably reproduce in their judgments, the injuries from the injury reports of the injured persons. We hope and trust that the aforesaid circulars 9 NC413 No. 564 of 2025 shall be complied with by all the Judicial Officers while writing their judgments".

Consequently, the Bench directed the Registrar (Compliance) to circulate a copy of this judgment amongst all Judicial Officers of the State of Uttar Pradesh to ensure strict compliance regarding the reproduction of injuries from the injury reports of the injured persons and/or deceased in the judgment to be rendered by them.

Background of the case

The Sessions Court had acquitted the husband (Vashishtha Yadav) of charges under Sections 498-A (Cruelty) and 304 (Dowry Death) IPC pertaining to the death of his 32-year-old wife.

Briefly put, the appellant (brother of the victim-deceased) alleged that his sister was harassed for bringing less dowry and for not bearing a son. He claimed that on arriving at the in-laws' house, his nieces informed him that their mother was beaten to death by the accused and his family members.

Prosecution's case rested on the testimony of PW-3, the minor daughter of the deceased. The appellant argued that the trial court committed gross illegality by discarding her testimony.

However, upon re-evaluating the evidence, the High Court found the child's testimony to be fraught with contradictions.

The HC noted that while she claimed in her examination-in-chief that her mother was beaten at her uncle's residence, she admitted in cross-examination that the incident occurred at her own house.

The bench further noted that she had admitted that she was sleeping when the alleged incident occurred and only woke up when her mother was being taken to the hospital.

The Court also noted that she had admitted that her uncle (informant) had explained to her as to what statement has to be given in the Court and thus, the bench opined that tutoring of this innocent child witness could not be ruled out.

Furthermore, the High Court noted that the adult witnesses [the appellant (PW-1) and another relative (PW-2)] had admitted in their cross-examination that their allegations regarding the demand for a motorcycle and harassment were made merely for 'giving colour' to the present case. In fact, the also conceded that no incident of harassment had ever taken place in their presence.

Against this backdrop, dismissing the appeal, the High Court reiterated that an appellate court should not interfere with an order of acquittal unless the judgment suffers from "patent perversity" or misreading of evidence.

The Court also said that there is a double presumption in Favor of the accused after an acquittal that is to say that firstly they have the fundamental presumption of innocence and secondly, the trial court's verdict in their favour.

Therefore, finding no perversity in the trial court's reasoning, the Bench dismissed the appeal.

Appearances

Counsel for Appellants(s) : Ajeet Kumar Prajapati, Rishi Kumar Prajapati, Virendra Kumar Maurya

Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.