Dismissed

Virendra Singh v. State of U.P. and Orthers

Allahabad HC1 Dec 2018CRLR/1889/1990

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal revision filed against acquittal of four accused persons in a homicide case. The High Court Bench held that the findings of the Sessions Judge were plausible and no interference was required as the revisional court lacks jurisdiction to replace factual findings.

What did the court decide?

Revision dismissed. No interference called for in the impugned judgment and order under 304 IPC.

Virendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and Orthers — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1889 of 1990

¶3

Revisionist :- Virendra Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Orthers Counsel for Revisionist :- Y.S.Bohra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Tej Pal,AGA,S.K. Pandey-Ii

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

1-Heard Sri Y.S. Bohra, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

2-This criminal revision has been preferred by Virendra Singh against the impugned judgment and order dated 28.7.1990 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Mathura in S.T. No. 299 of 1989, under Sections 323, 324 and 304 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Mathura whereby opposite partiesShyam Singh, Satyaveer, Tej Vir and Ram Khilari were acquitted under Section 304 I.P.C.

¶7

3-Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that injured/deceased Sant Kumar had received eight injuries, resultantly died. On the ground of right of private/self defence, charges were not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Opposite parties no. 2 to 5 were acquitted wrongly.

¶8

4-Sri Hridai Narain Shukla, learned A.G.A. submitted that Government appeal has not been preferred against the impugned judgment and office report dated 17.9.2018 also shows that no Government appeal against the impugned judgment has been filed.

¶9

5-Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that in spite of the letter written by him to the revisionist he did not turn up.

¶10

6-From perusal of the impugned judgment, it transpires that opposite parties no. 2 to 5 were acquitted on the ground that injuries received by the injured/deceased were found simple in nature caused by blunt object and in cross case similar injuries were received by opposite parties no. 2 to 5 and it was also found that opposite parties no. 2 to 5 have not exceeded the right of private defence and deceased was died later on.

¶11

7-From perusal of the record, it also transpires that the view taken by the court below is plausible view. Hence, no interference is called for in revision.

¶12

8-Moreover, the Apex Court in the case of State Farm Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Nijjer Agro Foods Ltd.,

¶13

(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.

¶14

9-This Court finds no illegality, impropriety, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. No interference is called for. The present revision lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. Hence dismissed.

¶15

10-Copy of this judgment and lower court record be transmitted to the court concerned for necessary action and compliance.

¶16

Order Date :- 1.12.2018 OP

Virendra Singh v. State of U.P. and Orthers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virendra Singh v. State of U.P. and Orthers

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

Pappu Alias Santosh Soni Vs State of U.P.

Manoj Vs State of U.P.

Vipin @ Shempu Vs State of U.P.

K.N. Agrawal Vs C.J.M. Aligarh and Others

Suraj Pal Singh and Another Vs Raghunandan Prasad and Others

Surendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others