Criminal revision challenging acquittal of accused for kidnapping and criminal breach of peace. High Court upheld Sessions Judge's rejection of prosecution witnesses as fabricated.
The criminal revision filed by the revisionist is 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. - 1983 of 1999
Revisionist :- Rajendra Pal Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Others Counsel for Revisionist :- S.P.K.Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate,R.S.Shukla
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
List has been revised. Learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 and 3 are not present. However, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. (opposite party no. 1) is present.
Heard Sri L.D. Rajbhar, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P.
This criminal revision has been filed by informant-revisionist Rajendra Pal Singh against the judgment and order dated 03.07.1999 passed by Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur in Sessions Trial No. 487 of 1997 (State v. Ram Laraite and others), whereby accused Ram Laraitey, Ram Pratap adn Ramesh @ Punna were acquitted for offence punishable under Sections 364 IPC and Section 304/34 IPC.
As per prosecution version, P.W.3 Salim and P.W.4 Ram Niwas, who were eyewitnesses of the occurrence, had seen the accused with the deceased on 19.03.1997 at 12 noon. On the same day, they informed about the occurrence to the informant. They were present on spot at the arrival of police personnel.
Learned trial court observed that eye-witnesses named in the first information report, P.W.2 Lal Bahadur and P.W.5 Jandail Singh have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution version. Although P.W.3 Salim and P.W.4 Ram Niwas were present on 19.03.1997 on spot while the I.O. was inspecting the spot, but their statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 20.03.1997. On this ground, learned Sessions Judge, Saharanpur held that P.W.3 Salim and P.W.4 Ram Niwas had not witnessed the occurrence, but had been picked up by the police to be cited as an eye-witnesses of the occurrence. This shows that both the witnesses - P.W.3 Salim and P.W.4 Ram Niwas are got up witnesses and hence, they are unnatural and unreliable witnesses.
From the perusal of impugned judgment, I am of the view that the view taken by the trial court is not perverse.
Resultantly, the instant revision is dismissed.
Order Date :- 3.4.2018 I. Batabyal
2 issues framed by the court
Whether dismissal of revisional petition challenging acquittal on ground of 'got up witnesses' is sustainable.
Whether trial court's finding that prosecution eyewitnesses were fabricated is perverse.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Rajendra Pal Singh
State Of U.P.
Umesh Chandra Tripathi
I. Batabyal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
