Dismissed

Pardeshi v. Kallu and Others

Allahabad HC20 Apr 2018CRLR/1452/1990

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Revision No. 1452 of 1990, the High Court dismissed the revision filed by Pardeshi against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Jaunpur. The Sessions Judge had allowed an appeal filed by the accused and acquitted them from the offence punishable under Sections 323/34 and 324/34 IPC. The High Court found no illegality in the order passed by the Sessions Judge and hence dismissed the revi

What the court decided

AI extract

Pardeshi Vs Kallu and Others — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 28

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1452 of 1990

¶3

Revisionist :- Pardeshi Opposite Party :- Kallu & Others Counsel for Revisionist :- K.C. Saxena Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

List has been revised. No one is present on behalf of revisionist and opposite party nos. 1 to 3 to argue the case.

¶6

Heard learned A.G.A. for State.

¶7

This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 03.07.1990 passed by Sessions Judge, Jaunpur in Criminal Appeal No. 19/1989 (Sabhajeet and others Vs. State of U.P.), allowing the appeal whereby the appeal of opposite party nos. 1 to 3 Sabhajeet, Katto and Ziledar, was allowed and they were acquitted from the offence punishable under Section 323/34 and 324/34 I.P.C. Appeal was filed against judgment and order dated 16.08.1989 passed by Judicial Magistrate IInd, Jaunpur in Case No. 1495 of 1988 (State Vs. Katto and others) whereby accused Kallu, Sabhajeet and Ziledar were convicted and each of them was sentenced to simple imprisonment for the period of six months under Section 323/34 I.P.C. and simple imprisonment for two years under Sections 324/34 I.P.C. Both sentences were directed to run concurrently.

¶8

As per prosecution version, on 23.09.1983 at about 8:00 a.m. complainant Pardeshi was cutting merh. Accused Katto, Ziledar and Sabhajeet armed with 'Gadansa' 'lathi-danda' came there and asked Pardeshi not to demolish the merh. Some altercation took place between them and accused assaulted upon the complainant Pardeshi with 'Gadansa' and 'lathi-danda', due to which he sustained injury.

¶9

In this occurrence, accused also sustained injuries which was not explained by the prosecution. On the basis of non-explanation of injuries of accused person, benefit of doubt has been given to accused by the Sessions Judge.

¶10

From perusal of the impugned judgment, I find that there is no illegality in the order passed by Sessions Judge.

¶11

In view of above, instant criminal revision is dismissed .

¶12

Order Date :- 20.4.2018 Sharad/-

Pardeshi v. Kallu and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Pardeshi v. Kallu and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Indrajeet Vs State of U.P.

Mandeep Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Krishna Kumar Agarwal Vs State of U.P.

Ramesh Alias Babbu Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Ravi Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sharad and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another