### Material Contradictions and Unproven Medical Reports Justify Affirmation of Acquittal in Grievous Hurt Cases

The State appealed an acquittal order dated 17.05.2016 passed by the JMFC, Banda, regarding charges under Section 325/34 of the IPC.

The prosecution alleged that on 13.09.2007, respondent No. 1 intercepted the complainant, Ashok Kumar, leading to a scuffle where respondent No. 2 assaulted him with the butt of an axe, causing a fracture in his left hand.

While the prosecution examined seven witnesses, the trial court acquitted the respondents due to material variations in witness testimonies and the failure to prove medical reports.

1. Whether the prosecution established the guilt of the respondents beyond reasonable doubt under Section 325/34 of the IPC despite material contradictions in oral evidence.

2. Whether the findings of acquittal recorded by the trial court were perverse or based on a misreading of evidence justifying interference by the appellate court.

The court applied Section 378 of the CrPC regarding appeals against acquittal.

It relied on the principles from H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka (2023) and Mallappa v. State of Karnataka (2024), which establish that an appellate court should not interfere with an acquittal if the trial court’s view is a "plausible view," even if a contrary view is possible.

Furthermore, it applied the rule that medical evidence regarding fractures must be proved by examining the doctor who conducted the X-ray/radiological examination.

The High Court found that the testimony of the complainant (PW-2) significantly contradicted the initial prosecution story; specifically, PW-2 alleged injuries to his leg caused by a stick, whereas the FIR/medical report mentioned hand injuries caused by an axe.

Several witnesses, including independent witness PW-1 and seizure witness PW-5, turned hostile.

Crucially, the court noted that the X-ray report was never proved in evidence because the radiologist was not examined, rendering the allegation of a "grievous hurt" (fracture) unsubstantiated.

Additionally, the prosecution failed to produce the original Rojnamcha or an FIR bearing the complainant's signature.

These inconsistencies and procedural lapses led the court to determine that the trial court’s decision was not perverse and represented a reasonable interpretation of the evidence.

It held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the respondents beyond reasonable doubt due to material contradictions regarding the weapons used, the nature of injuries, and the manner of occurrence.

The court concluded that no illegality or error of law existed in the trial court's findings to warrant interference under Section 378 CrPC.