In a criminal revision against orders of acquittal and conviction, the High Court held that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court contained no illegality upon consideration of facts and circumstances, and dismissed the revision.
The criminal revision petition was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 28
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1673 of 1995
Revisionist :- Smt. Rama Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Apul Misra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
List has been revised. Learned counsel for the revisionist is not present to argue the revision. Heard Sri L.D. Rajbhar, learned A.G.A., for the State.
This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 10.10.1995 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur in Sessions Trial No. 158 of 1990 (State Vs. Sita Ram and others) whereby opposite party Nos. 2 to 5 acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. Further opposite party No. 2 (Sita Ram) and opposite party No. 5 (Balak Ram) were convicted under Section 323 IPC and sentenced to period already undergone and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Further opposite party No. 3 (Raja Ram) and opposite party No. 4 (Ram Das) were convicted under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to period already undergone and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.
As per opinion of Doctor, who examined the injured, the injuries of the injured were simple in nature and were not fatal or dangerous to life. Injuries were also not on vital part of the injured.
Accused Sita Ram is real brother of the injured Basant and at that time he was above sixty years of age. Accused Raja Ram and Ram Das are sons of Sita Ram. Accused Balak Ram is son-in-law (bhanji's husband) of the injured. The occurrence took place in the year 1988.
Considering all these facts and circumstances of the case, learned Trial Court passed the impugned order.
In view of above, I am of the considered view that there is no illegality in the order passed by the learned Trial Court.
Consequently, this criminal revision is dismissed.
Order Date :- 7.5.2018 Jaswant
1 issue framed by the court
Whether there is any illegality in the acquittal order of opposite party Nos. 2 to 5 and conviction order of opposite party Nos. 2 and 5 under Section 323 IPC and opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 under Sec
Rama Devi
State Of U.P.
Umesh Chandra Tripathi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
