Dismissed

Bhanu Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC16 Jul 2018A372/263/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court rejected an application for leave to appeal against the acquittal of three accused persons under the IPC by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly. The High Court held that the trial court's view was feasible, finding that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of evidence with independent corroboration for the 'last seen' theory given the four-day time gap. Consequently,

What did the court decide?

Application for leave to appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. was rejected; appeal dismissed consequentially.

Bhanu Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 51

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION U/S 372 CR.P.C (LEAVE TO APPEAL) No. - 263 of 2018 Applicant :- Bhanu Pratap Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Fahim Ahmed,Sanjay Gangwar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Syed Fahim Ahmed, learned counsel for the applicant on the application seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 28.03.2018, by means of which the accused -respondents namely Farukh, Aashik and Ravi Kumar have been acquitted for offences under sections 364, 302 / 34 and 201 of I.P.C. in case crime no. 454 of 2012 passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Bareilly in S.T. No. 1179 of 2012vide its judgment and order dated 30.03.2018 passed in Session Trial No. 730 of 2011.

¶6

First informant himself is the appellant and the office report shows that no state appeal has been preferred till date.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the appellant at length and perused the findings as recorded by the court concerned. The record shows that with regard to the incident on 25.08.2012 an FIR was lodged on 27.08.2012 at about 05:30 in the evening and body was recovered on 29.08.2012 and thereafter sections 302 and 201 IPC were added. The Prosecution has examined four witnesses namely PW-1 Bhanu Pratap first informant, PW-2 Smt. Kamla Devi who appears to be wife of first informant, PW-3 Smt. Sakuntala Devi wife of Ashok Kumar and PW-4 Ashok Kumar who is not an eye witness. As far as PW-1 is concerned, it is admitted case that he is not a witness of last seen. The findings recorded in this regard by court concerned are being extracted herein below:-

¶8

bl lk{kh dh izfri`PNk cpko i{k }kjk dh x;h] ftlls mUgksus ;g Lohdkjk fd muds iq= jkds'k dks muds lkeus dskbZ cqykdj ugh ys x;kA

¶9

muds iq= jkds'k dqekj muds lkeus ?kj ls ugh x;s FksA os vfHk;qDrx.k dks tkurs igpkurs gSA mUgskus rgjhj ij vfHk;qDr jfo dqekj dk uke ugh fy[kk;k FkkA igyh ckj vfHk;qDr jfo dqekj dk uke dkuwuh lykg ds mijkUr fy[kk;k FkkA

¶10

¶11

As far as PW-2 is concerned, the court has rightly observed that he has admitted that there exists previous enmity between the parties.

¶12

The court concerned after going through the entire evidence on record has elaborated some point which can admitted on record by both the parties concerned. The relevant extract is quoted herein below:-

¶13

bl okn es eq[; fu.kkZ;d iz'u gS fd D;k 25-08-12 dsk le; djhc 4-00 cts lka; cgn LFkku xzke ijsok eks0 vyh Fkkuk Hkskthiqjk ftyk cjsyh es vfHk;qDrx.k us oknh Hkkuqizrki ds iq= jkds'k dqekj dk mlds ?kj ls gR;k djus ds fy, vigj.k fd;k ,oa fnukad 24-08-2012 ls 29-08-2012 ds chp fdlh le; vKkr LFkku ij vfHk;qDrx.k us ,d jk; gksdj lkekU; vk'k; ds vxzlj.k es mldh reaps ls xksyh ekjdj gR;k dj nh ,oa gR;k dh lk{; dk foyksiu djus ds fy, mldh yk'k dks uRFkw yky ds [ksr es fNik fn;k \

¶14

bl okn es dqN Lohd`r o eq[; rF; gS &

¶15

1- ;g fd bl okn es dksbZ Lora= lk{kh ugh gSA lHkh lk{kh e`rd jkds'k

¶16

dqekj ds lxs fj'rsnkj gS] ftUgksus Lohdkj fd;k gS fd erd viuh iRuh ds lkFk vius llqjky es jgrk FkkA

¶17

2- ;g fd bl okn es dfFkr ?kVuk dk dksbZ p'enhn lk{kh ugh gSA

¶18

3- ;g fd ih0 Mcyw0 & 10 Mk0 lqjsUnz dqekj tkSgjh us vius C;ku es

¶19

Lohdkjk gS fd erd dh eR;q fnukad 24-08-2012 dks lqcg 6-00 cts gksuk laHko gSA

¶20

4- ;g fd ih0 Mcyw0 & 10 Mk0 lqjsUnz dqekj tkSgjh us vius Lk'kiFk c;ku es Li"V fd;k gS fd e`rd ds 'kjhj es tks ,d vkXus;kL= dh pksV gS] og 315 cksj dh jk;Qy ls vkuk gh lEHko gSA

¶21

5- ;g fd ih0 Mcyw0 & 10 Mk0 lqjsUnz dqekj tkSgjh us vius l'kiFk c;ku es Li"V fd;k gS fd e`rd ds psgjs ls mls igpkuuk lEHko ugh gSA

¶22

bl okn ds oknh ih0 Mcyw0 & 1 Hkkuq izrki us viuh eq[; ijh{kk es vius }kjk izLrqr rgjhj dk leFkZu fd;k] ysfdu izfriPNk es Lohdkj fd;k fd ftl le; muds iq= jkds'k dqekj dks dfFkr #i ls vfHk;qDrx.k vkf'kd gqlSu o Qk#[k vius lkFk ys x;s Fks] rc os ?kj ij ugh Fks rFkk mUgksus vius iq= dks ys tkrs gq, ugh ns[kkA bl lk{kh dk C;ku ek= rgjhj izn'kZ d & 1 o 2 dsk lkfcr djus gsrq egRoiw.kZ gSA bl lk{kh us Lohdkjk fd os vfHk;qDr Qk#[k dks tkurs gS] og xako ds ekLVj fot;iky ds dRy es vfHk;qDr iznhi ds lkFk vfHk;qDr Fkk rFkk mudk erd iq= Hkh bl dRy ds ekeys es lg vfHk;qDr FkkA ;g Hkh Lohdkjk fd rgjhj es mlus vfHk;qDr jfo dqekj dk uke ugh fy[kk;kA

¶23

As far as the evidence of PW-4 is concerned, the same has been discussed in elaborate manner. The relevant portion is extracted herein

¶24

¶25

below:-

¶26

ih0 Mcyw0 & 4 v'kksd dqekj iq= Hkkuq izrki] erd ds HkkbZ gS rFkk mUgksus vius l'kiFk c;ku es crk;k fd mUgksus vius HkkbZ jkds'k dqekj dks vfHk;qDrx.k Qk#[k o vkf'kd gqlSu ds lkFk ys tkrs ugh ns[kk Fkk] dsoy ih0 Mcyw0 & 3 Jherh 'kdqUryk nsoh ds crk;s tkus ds vuqlkj ;g ckr mUgksus U;k;ky; es mijksDr okn es dgh gSA mUgs ugh irk fd erd jkds'k dqekj o vfHk;qDr jfo ds chp >xMk fdl rkjh[k o fdl eghus es gqvkA mUgksus Lohdkjk fd mlds firk us ;g crk;k fd nksusk ds chp >xMk gqvk FkkA ih0 Mcyw0 & 1 us viuh eq[; ijh{kk es i"B & 3 ds vfUre izLrj es viuh erd iq= jkds'k dqekj o jfo dqekj ds chp dgk lquh o ekjihV dh ckr dgh gS rFkk ;g Hkh dgk fd erd jkds'k dqekj dh gR;k dh vfHk;qDr jfo dqekj us vfHk;qDrx.k Qk#[k o vkf'kd gqlSu dks lqikjh nh FkhA ;g Hkh Lohdkjk fd muds iq= dk ,d okn vfHk;qDrx.k Qk#[k o vkf'kd gqlSu ds chp py jgk gSA bl lk{kh us tks Hkh dFku fd;s gS os lquh lqukbZ ckrks ij vk/kkfjr gS rFkk bl lk{kh us Lo;a ns[kh gqbZ ckrks ij viuk c;ku ugh fn;k gSA ;g bl lk{kh ds c;ku ds i"B & 5 ls Li"V gksrk gS] ftles mlus Lohdkj fd;k fd }kfjdk izlkn iq= yhyk/kj us mls ;g crk;k Fkk fd vfHk;qDr jfo us vfHk;qDrx.k vkf'kd gqlSu o Qk#[k dks jkds'k dqekj dh gR;k dh lqikjh nh gSA ;g ckr mUgksus mudk dRy o yk'k feyus ds 15 & 20 fnu ckn crk;h FkhA ;g ckr foospd ds c;ku es ugh vk;h gS] ftldk os dkj.k ugh crk ldrsA ;g Hkh Lohdkjk fd bl okn es muds ifjokj ds lnL; ds vfrfjDr dksbZ lk{kh ugh gSA mudsk gfjvkse ukbZ us crk;k Fkk fd muds HkkbZ jkds'k dqekj dks fnukad 25-08-2012 dks 4-30 cts fnu vkeksj xkao es vkf[kjh ckj ns[kk FkkA ;g ckr mUgs mlus yk'k feyus ds 4 & 5 fnu ckn crk;h FkhA ;g ckr mUgksus foospd dks ugh crk;h FkhA mYys[kuh; gS fd gfjvkse ukbZ dks vfHk;kstu us vfHk;kstu lk{kh ds #i es mijksDr okn es izLrqr ugh fd;k gS rFkk bl lk{kh us gR;k dh lwpuk v'kksd dqekj ds eksckby ij vkuk crk;k gS rFkk ftl eksckby uEcj ls vkuk crk;k gS] mldk ^^ dky fooj.k^^ Hkh viuh lk{; es fn;k gSA mYys[kuh; gS fd vfHk;kstu }kjk lk{khx.k ds c;kuks es mfYyf[kr eksckby uEcjks dh ^^ dky fMVsy^^ ugh fudyok;h x;h vkSj u gh i=koyh ij miyC/k gSA dky djus okys O;fDr dk uke Hkh bl lk{kh dsk ugh irk vkSj crk;s x;s rF;ks ds lEca/k es ftl O;fDr us fooj.k fn;k gS] og bl lk{kh us ugh crk;kA bl lk{kh us ?kVuk ds fnu o le; ?kVuk LFky ij mifLFkr ugh Fkk] D;ksfd og i<kbZ gsrq dkyst x;k FkkA bl izdkj bl lk{kh dsk p'enhn ugh dgk tk ldrkA bl lk{kh us tks c;ku fn;k gS og mlds c;ku vUrxZr /kkjk 161 tkCrk QkStnkjh ds c;kuks es mfYyf[kr ugh gS]

¶27

¶28

ftl rF; dks bl lk{kh dsk mlds c;ku dks fn[kk;k x;k rks mlus ;g Lohdkjk fd ;g ckrs tks mlus U;k;ky; es lk{kh ds #i es crk;h gS] os ckrs foospd }kjk muds c;kuks es ugh fy[kh x;h gSA bl lk{kh us Lohdkjk fd muds HkkbZ jkds'k dqekj dh nq'euh vfHk;qDr Qk#[k o vkf'kd gqlSu ls ugh Fkh rFkk iSlk o tehu dk dksbZ ysu & nsu ugh FkkA ;g Hkh Lohdkjk fd muds erd HkkbZ jkds'k dqekj viuh iRuh uRFkks nsoh ds lkFk vyx jgrs FksA ;g Hkh Lohdkjk fd erd dh iRuh uRFkks nsoh dk muds ifjokj ls dksbZ tehu dk fookn ugh FkkA uRFksk nsoh bl okn es lk{kh ugh gSA xkao dk dskbZ Hkh O;fDr bl okn es lk{kh ugh gSA

¶29

The most important piece of evidence it is Sri Suresh Kumar Johri who has been examined as PW-10 and his testimony has been discussed in the order. The relevant extract is quoted herein below:-

¶30

bl okn es mYys[kuh; gS fd ih0 Mcyw0 & 10 Mk0 lqjsUnz dqekj tkSgjh us viuh izfri`PNk es rhu eq[; ckrsa Lohdkj dh gS] ftues &

¶31

1- ;g fd erd dh eR;q fnukad 24-08-2012 dsk lqcg 6-00 cts gks ldrh gSA

¶32

2- ;g fd e`rd ds psgjs ls mls igpkuuk lEHko ugh gSA

¶33

3- ;g fd erd dh eR;q 315 cksj jk;Qy ds Qk;j ls gksuk lEHko gSA mYys[kuh; gS fd oknh ih0 Mcyw0 & 1 Hkkuq izrki }kjk izFke rgjhj izn'kZ d & 1 Fkkuk Hkksthiqjk tuin cjsyh ij fnukad 27-08-2012 dks fy[kk;h x;h gS] ftles Li"V dFku fd;s x;s gS fd muds iq= jkds'k dqekj dk vigj.k vfHk;qDrx.k vkf'kd gqLkSu o Qk#[k us muds ?kj ls fnukad 25-08-2012 dsk nksigj 4-00 cts fd;kA mUgs 'kd gS fd muds iq= dh gR;k dj x;h gS rFkk mlh bjkns ls mldk vigj.k fd;k x;k gSA oknh ih0 Mcyw0 & 1 Hkkuq izrki us viuh nwljh rgjhj fnukad 29-08-2012 dks Fkkuk Hkskthiqjk tuin cjsyh es fy[kk;h tks izn'kZ d & 2 ds #Ik es i=koyh ij miyC/k gSA bl rgjhj es oknh us ;g Li"V fd;k gS fd muds iq= dh yk'k ftl LFkku ij og iMh gS] mldh lwpuk mUgs dSls feyh vkSj dSls mUgksus rFkk muds ifjokj o xkao okysk us mldh f'kuk[r dhA

¶34

mijksDr ds vfrfjDr i=koyh ij fpfdRlh; lk{; tks ih0 Mcyw0 & 10 Mk0 lqjs'k dqekj tkSgjh us U;k;ky; ds le{k izLrqr fd;k gS] mles erd jkds'k dqekj dk vUr ijh{k.k dj bl lk{kh us viuh vk[;k izLrqr dh gS] tks i=koyh ij ewy #i ls izn'kZ d & 21 ds #i es miyC/k gSA izfri"Bk es bl lk{kh us Lohdkjk gS fd yk'k ds voyksdu mijkURk erd dk psgjk igpkuuk eqefdu ugh FkkA erd ds 'kjhj ij ,d ek= vkXus;kL= dk izos'k ?kko 2 lseh0 x 2 lseh0 dk cka;s dku ds mij Fkk] dkfyek 6 lseh0 x 7

¶35

¶36

lseh0 ds vkdkj es ?kko ds pkjks vksj Fkh rFkk ckgj tkus dk ?kko 3 x 3 lseh0 dk Fkk tks nk;s dku ds mij FkkA ;g ?kko uEcj ,d ls dusDVsM Fkk] ftlls ;g Li"V gS fd xksyh jk;Qy ls pyk;h x;h FkhA iqfyl us dfFkr #i ls vfHk;qDr ds c;ku ds vk/kkj ij reapk cjken fd;k gS] ftlls ;g ugh dgk tk ldrk fd ;g reapk ogh Fkk] tks erd dks ekjus ds fy, iz;qDr fd;k x;k] D;ksfd bl cjkenxh es turk ds lk{kh x.k izLrqr ugh fd;s x;s rFkk fpfdRldh; lk{; mijksDrkuqlkj ds vuqlkj erd dh gR;k jk;Qy }kjk dh x;h Fkh u fd reaps ds }kjkA

¶37

fpfdRlh; lk{; }kjk ih0 Mcyw0 & 10 Mk0 lqjsUnz dqekj tkSgjh ds c;ku ds vkf[kjh iafDr ds vuqlkj erd dh gR;k fnukad 24-08-2012 dsk lqcg 6-00 cts gksuk laHko gS] tcfd vfHk;kstu ds vuqlkj vfHk;qDrx.k vkf'kd gqlSu o Qk#[k] erd jkds'k dqekj dks vius lkFk fnukad 25-082012 dks nskigj 4-00 cts dfFkr #i ls vius lkFk ys x;s Fks rks vfHk;kstu dFkukuqlkj erd dh gR;k mlds ckn gh lEHko gS] tcfd ih0 Mcyw0 & 10 ds vuqlkj erd dh gR;k fnukad 25-08-2012 ls ,d fnu iwoZ izkr% 6-00 cts gksuk ik;h x;h gSA vc ;g Lor% Li"V gS fd tc vfHk;sktu lk{; fpfdRlh; lk{; ls fojks/kkHkklh gks rFkk fpfdRlh; lk{; ls ;g lkfcr gks jgk gsk fd vfHk;kstu dFkkud fpfdRlh; lk{; ds vk/kkj ij gh lEHko gh ugh gS rks ,slh fLFkfr es vfHk;kstu lk{; ds vuqlkj vfHk;qDrx.k dks muds fo#) fojfpr vkjksiks esa nks"kfl) ugh fd;k tk ldrkA

¶38

The court concerned has also observed that as far as the recovery is concerned, it is doubtful. In this regard the court has observed which is quoted herein below:-

¶39

ysfdu i=koyh ij miyC/k vfHk;kstu lk{; ds }kjk ;g Li"V gS fd ,slh cjkenxh ds le; turk dk dksbZ Hkh lk{khx.k lfEefyr ugh fd;k x;k gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa ;g cjkenxh lansg mtkxj djrh gS rFkk bls fof/k vuqlkj lkfcr ugh fd;k tk ldrkA

¶40

And after going through the entire evidence on record the court concerned has recorded conclusion herein as under:-

¶41

bl okn es ,d egRoiw.kZ rF; gS fd vfHk;kstu ds rF; ds LkHkh lk{khx.k e`rd jkds'k dqekj ds lxs lEca/kh gS rFkk vfHk;qDrx.k dks tkurs gS] dksbZ Hkh Lora= rF; dk lk{kh vfHk;kstu us izLrqr ugh fd;k gSA i=koyh ij lk{; miyC/k gS fd vfHk;kstu ds rF; ds lk{khx.k vfHk;qDrx.k ls jaft'k j[krs gSA ,slh fLFkfr es vfHk;kstu ds rF; ds lk{khx.k dk lk{; dk leFkZUk Lora= lk{khx.k ls gksuk vfuok;Z Fkk] tks fd vfHk;kstu us izLrqr fd;sA

¶42

¶43

;g tks egRoiw.kZ gS fd dfFkr vijk/k dkfjr djus dh dfFkr ea'kk vfHk;kstu lk{khx.k ds }kjk mudh tkudkjh ds vk/kkj ij vk/kkfjr ugh gS] cfYd lquh lqukbZ ckrks ij vk/kkfjr gS rFkk bl izdkj ;g lk{; fo'oluh; ugh gS] D;ksfd ;g lk{; Hearsay (lquh lqukbZ ckrks) ij vk/kkfjr gksrk gSA vfHk;kstu }kjk dgk x;k gS fd vfHk;qDr jfo dqekj us vfHk;qDrx.k vkf'kd o Qk#[k dks e`rd jkds'k dqekj dh gR;k djus ds fy, lqikjh nh Fkh] ysfdu ;g ckr vfHk;kstu ds fdlh rF; ds lk{khx.k dh futh tkudkjh esa izkIRk ugh gS] cfYd lquh lqukbZ ckrks ij vk/kkfjr gS rFkk ftu O;fDr;ks us muls ;g ckr dgh] mudks vfHk;kstu us vfHk;kstu lk{kh ds #Ik es mijskDr okn es bl U;k;ky; es izLrqr ugh fd;kA ;g ckr oknh us viuh nksusk rgjhj es Hkh ugh fy[khA

¶44

mijksDr foospu rFkk o i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{;] vfHk;kstu ds }kjk izLrqr ifjfLFkfrtU; lk{;] vfHk;qDrx.k ds c;ku tk s mues vfHk;qDr Qk#[k us fn;s rFkk vfUre ckj ,d lkFk ns[ks tkus ds fof/kd fl)kUr ds vuqlkj fof/k O;oLFkkvks ds vk/kkj ij vfHk;kstu }kjk izLrqr vfHkys[kh; rFkk ekSf[kd lk{; ds vuqlkj vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo#) fojfpr vkjksiks es lansg ls ijs lkfcr ugh gksrs gS rFkk bldk ykHk vfHk;qDrx.k dks fn;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr gSA mijksDrkuqlkj vfHk;kstu vfHk;qDrx.k Qk#[k] vkf'kd gqlSu o jfo dqekj ds fo#) fojfpr vkjksi vUrxZr /kkjk 364] 302@34] 201 Hkk0 na0 la0 o vfHk;qDr Qk#[k mijksDr ds fo#) fojfpr vkjksi vUrxZr /kkjk 25 vk;q/k vf/kfu;e lansg ls ijs lkfcr djus es ;qfDr;qDr #i ls foQy jgk gSA ,slh fLFkfr es lansg dk YkkHk nsrs gq, vfHk;qDrx.k Qk#[k] vkf'kd gqlSu o jfo dqekj dks muds fo#) fojfpr vkjksi vUrxZr /kkjk 364] 302@ 34] 201 Hkk0 na0 la0 esa rFkk vfHk;qDr Qk#[k mijksDr dks mlds fo#) fojfpr vkjksi vUrxZr /kkjk 25 vk;q/k vf/kfu;e es nks"keqDr fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr gSA

¶45

In view of the facts and circumstances, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant has placed reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Satpal Vs. State of Haryana ( Criminal Appeal No. 1892 of 2017) decided on 01.05.2018.

¶46

The counsel for the appellant has relied upon the aforesaid case nevertheless the established principle is with regard to the proximity of the time when a person went missing and when the body was found. Keeping in view the circumstances of the present case i.e. a person went missing on 25.08.2012 and the body was recovered on 29.08.2012 and

¶47

¶48

keeping this fact in mind along with parameter as has been laid down by the Apex Court in the following cases:- (i) Nizam and Another vs. State of Rajasthan 2016 (1) SCC 550 and State of Karnataka vs. Chand Basha 2016 (1) SCC 501 wherein the Apex Court has held that the close proximity between the last seen evidence and death should be clearly established and that if the time gap is long (as in the present case) it would be unsafe to base conviction on " last seen theory". In fact it would be safe to look for corroboration from other circumstances and evidences adduced by the prosecution. In the present case we find that there is no other corroboration of the last seen evidence. The time gap is also of almost four days.

¶49

Reference may also be made to another judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Braksha @ Zalim vs. State of Chattishgarh AIR 2016 SCC 2381 . In the said judgment the Apex Court has again reiterated the legal position with the following observation. It is a trite law that a conviction cannot be recorded against accused merely on the ground that accused was last seen with the deceased. In other words, conviction cannot be based on only circumstance of last seen. The Apex Court has further held that normally the last seen theory comes into play where the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the parameter of crime becomes impossible.

¶50

Reference, may also be made to the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the cases of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra[1] , this Court laid down the five principles as regards the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence. This Court has reiterated those principles time and again. They are:

¶51

"(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.

¶52

xxx xxx xxx

¶53

(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty,

¶54

(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency,

¶55

¶56

(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and

¶57

(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.

¶58

These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence."

¶59

On a bare perusal of the judgment and order dated 30.03.2018, it cannot be said that the view taken by the trial court is not a possible view or a feasible view that could be taken by a reasonable person. Moreover as no illegality or perversity has been pointed out by learned A.G.A., this Court refuses to grant any indulgence in the impugned judgment.

¶60

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstance of the case, application seeking leave to appeal is rejected. Consequently the appeal is dismissed.

¶61

Let a copy of this order be certified to the court concerned.

¶62

Order Date :- 16.7.2018 Swati

Bhanu Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhanu Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of U.P. Vs Narsu Alias Nasruddin and 5 Others

State of U.P. Vs Girraj Urf Babloo

State of U.P. Vs Paras and 3 Others

State of U.P. Vs Mahavir and Others

Ramveer Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

State of U.P. Vs Rahul and Anr.