Dismissed

Sri Gudan Shahu v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC14 Sept 2018CRLR/1558/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Revision No. 1558 of 1999, the Court affirmed the acquittal of Ramesh, Shanker, and Lakhi in a criminal trial involving assault. Relying on precedent, the Court held that revisional jurisdiction is limited to legality and propriety and cannot substitute findings of fact. The revision was dismissed as lacking merit.

What did the court decide?

The revision was dismissed; the acquittal of opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 and the judgment dated 24.5.1999 were confirmed.

Sri Gudan Shahu Vs State of U.P. and Others — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 41

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1558 of 1999

¶3

Revisionist :- Chatare Shahu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Others Counsel for Revisionist :- S.P. Sahrma Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

None is present on behalf of revisionist even in the revised list. Heard Learned AGA and perused the record. This revision is being decided on merit.

¶6

This revision has been preferred by Chatare Shahu against State, Ramesh, Shanker and Lakhi assailing judgment and order dated 24.5.1999 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mehrauni, Lalitpur in Case No. 382 of 1994(State of U.P. vs. Ramesh and others), Police Station Banpur, District Lalitpur whereby opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 namely, Ramesh, Shanker and Lakhi have been acquitted under section 323/34, 324/34 504/34, 506 IPC.

¶7

Brief facts of the case are that on 17.10.1993 at 9 A.M. on the way near the field of Kulpariya accused/opposite parties assaulted Chatare with stick & Saang. Injured was medically examined, he received seven injuries.

¶8

Prosecution examined P.W.-1 Chatare, P.W.-2 Bhaiya Lal, P.W.-3 Kashi Ram and P.W.-4 Dr. G.P. Ojha. Statement of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.After hearing the argument of both the parties, impugned judgment and order was passed.

¶9

From the perusal of record, it transpires that opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 have been acquitted on the ground that offence under aforesaid sections have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt; independent witness Lambu was not examined;. P.W.-3 is not eye-witness and he not supported the prosecution case. It is further submitted that according to injury report, injuries were caused by blunt and hard object whereas in FIR and in statement of P.W.2 Bhaiya Lal (son of complainant and writer of FIR) the version is that accused persons assaulted his father Chatare with stick(lathi) and 'Saang'. According to opinion of Dr. G.P. Ojha(P.W.-4), no injury received by injured was possible to have been caused by 'Saang'; There are major contradictions between statements of P.W.-1 Chatare and P.W.-2 Bhaiya Lal. The Trial Court found story of prosecution to be concocted, unnatural and unbelievable. Place of occurrence and nature of offence were also not proved beyond reasonable doubt as alleged in the FIR.

¶10

The Apex Court in the case of State Farm Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Nijjer Agro Foods Ltd., (2005) 12 SCC 502, State of Maharashtra Vs. Jag Mohan Singh Kuldip Singh, 2004 (50) ACC 889 (SC) and Munna Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2002 SC 107, has held that while the appellate jurisdiction is co-extensive with the original court's jurisdiction as a appreciation and re-appreciation of evidence is concerned, the revisional court has simply to confine to the legality and propriety of the findings and as to whether the subordinate court acted within it's jurisdiction. A revisional court has no jurisdiction to set aside the findings of facts recorded by the Magistrate and impose and substitute it's own findings. Sections 397 to 401 Cr.P.C. confer only limited power on revisional court to the extent of satisfying the legality, propriety or regularity of the proceedings or orders of the lower court and not to act like appellate court for other purposes including the recording of new findings of fact on fresh appraisal of evidence.

¶11

This Court finds no illegality, impropriety, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned judgment & order. The present revision lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

¶12

The revision is dismissed. Judgment and order dated 24.5.1999 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mehrauni, Lalitpur in Case No. 382 of 1994(State of U.P. vs. Ramesh and others), Police Station Banpur, District Lalitpur acquitting opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 namely, Ramesh, Shanker and Lakhi under section 323/34, 324/34 504/34, 506 IPC is hereby confirmed.

¶13

Copy of this judgment alongwith original record of Court below be transmitted to the Court concerned immediately.

¶14

Order Date :- 14.9.2018 P.P.

Sri Gudan Shahu v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Gudan Shahu v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raghubir and Others Vs State of U.P.

Anil @ Ganja Vs State of U.P.

Sonu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Deepak Vs State of U.P.

Roshan Lal Vs State of U.P.

Ramesh Yadav Vs State