Dismissed

Dhruv Kumar Agarwal v. Mukund Agarwal

Allahabad HC11 Jul 2018CRLR/1754/1994

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed the criminal revision against an acquittal order of the Sessions Court. The judgment held that the acquittal was correct due to lack of cogent evidence, hostile witnesses, and failure to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence. The revision was dismissed at the admission stage as no illegality was found.

What did the court decide?

Criminal revision dismissed at the admission stage.

Dhruv Kumar Agarwal Vs Mukund Agarwal — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 41 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1754 of 1994 Revisionist :- Dhruv Kumar Jaiswal Opposite Party :- Mukund Agarwal Counsel for Revisionist :- G.S. Chaturvedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶3

This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist-Dhruv Kumar Agarwal against opposite parties no.1-Mukund Agarwal and 2-Das against the order dated 31.8.1994 passed by Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Jhansi in S.T. No. 20 of 1994 (State Vs. Mukund Agarwal and another) acquitting Mukund Agarwal and Das in Crime No. 187 of 1993, under Sections 302/34, 364 and 201 I.P.C., Police Station Sipari Bazar, District Jhansi.

¶4

No one is present on behalf of the revisionist.

¶5

Heard Sri J.N. Mishra and Sri Ray Sahab Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite parties no. 1 and 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

In compliance of the order dated 11.05.2018, learned A.G.A. states that the State has not filed appeal against the impugned judgment.

¶7

In nutshell, brief facts of the case are that First Information Report was lodged against opposite parties no. 1-Mukund Agarwal and No. 2-Das alleging that on 15.4.1993 they assaulted Neeraj Agarwal and killed him after consuming wine. The case was registered and charge-sheet was submitted. During investigation, bottles of beer and other material relating to consuming wine were found. During investigation, it was also found that some persons seen the deceased with revisionist while he was consuming wine and one T. Shirt on the pointing out of Mukund Agarwal was also recovered. After investigation, charges were framed and charge-sheet was submitted.

¶8

The prosecution examined twelve witnesses and Mukund Agarwal has stated in his statement under Section 313 Cr..P.C. that deceased Neeraj Agarwal and Mukund Agarwal are nephews and somebody else killed Neeraj. On the basis of suspicion, the accused has been falsely implicated and the Police has arrested him from his house. He has been falsely implicated as the actual culprit has not been searched out.

¶9

From the perusal of the record, it transpires that the case is totally based on circumstantial evidence and only evidence against the opposite parties no. 1 and 2 are of last seen. All

¶10

witnesses are the facts related to the last seen but they are not supported the prosecution case and turned hostile. Witnesses of recovery of T.Shirt are not supported the prosecution case and all independent witnesses related to recovery under Section 27 of Evidence Act have also been declared hostile and not supported the prosecution case. Hence, there is no cogent evidence against the opposite parties no. 1 and 2. Only P.W.1 and P.W.2 were not turned hostile and P.W.1 was not crossexamined,hence evidence of P.W.1 is not the evidence in the eye of law. No opportunity of cross-examination was provided to opposite parties no. 1 and 2, P.W.2 is the Constable and formal witness and only on the basis of recovery made by P.W.2, no conviction can be based because it is not corroborated by any evidence.

¶11

It was also found that in the G.D. of Thana, no proper entry was made about the recovery and G.D. was also not produced before the court. Other witnesses are not the witnesses of fact and they proved only documentary evidence but in absence of oral evidence of fact, only on the basis of documentary evidence conviction will not be proper. It is also pertinent to mention that from the perusal of the record and evidence there are major contradictions between the statements of witnesses and on the ground of benefit of doubt opposite parties no. 1 and 2 were acquitted. There was no eye witness account to prove the guilt against opposite parties no. 1 and 2. No chain was established to connect the case of circumstantial evidence.

¶12

Learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 submitted that prosecution was not able to prove the guilt against the accused persons and they were rightly acquitted.

¶13

This Court finds force in the argument of learned counsel for the opposite parties. It is also pertinent to mention that learned A.G.A. has admitted that State has not filed any appeal against the impugned judgment.

¶14

I do not find any illegality, impropriety, material irregularity or jurisdiction error in the impugned order. No interference is called for. The present revision lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage.

¶15

Revision is dismissed at the admission stage.

¶16

Office is directed to send the copy of this order along with the lower court record to the court concerned immediately for compliance.

¶17

Order Date :- 11.7.2018/OP

Dhruv Kumar Agarwal v. Mukund Agarwal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhruv Kumar Agarwal v. Mukund Agarwal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Raja Vs State of U.P.

Shoyeb Vs State of U.P.

Chhotey Alias Nafees Vs State of U.P.

Faheem Alias Panga Vs State of U.P.

Balram Singh and Another Vs State of U.P.