Allowed

Daya Ram v. State

Allahabad HC27 Aug 2018CRLR/412/1991

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the High Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the accused under the Arms Act. The Court held that since the accused was previously acquitted on the same evidence for other charges due to lack of reliable prosecution evidence, the charge under the Arms Act was likewise not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

What did the court decide?

Lower appellate and trial court judgments set aside; Accused acquitted under Section 25/27 Arms Act.

Daya Ram Vs State — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 41 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 412 of 1991 Revisionist :- Daya Ram Opposite Party :- State Counsel for Revisionist :- S.A.N. Shah,A.K.S.Bais Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶4

This criminal revision has filed by the revisionist Daya Ram against order dated 03.01.1991 passed by the Session Judge, Farrukhabad in Criminal Appeal No.33 of 1990 and order dated 27.06.1990 passed by Assistant Session Judge, Farrukhabad in S.T. No. 173 of 1988, whereby the revisionist was convicted under Section 25/27 Arms Act, sentencing six months rigorous imprisonment and appeal against that order No. 33 of 1990 was dismissed.

¶5

According to prosecution case on 07.10.1987 six accused namely Daya Ram, Harnath, Prem Singh, Sri Krishn, Ram Babu and Suresh were shot fire on police personnel but they have not received any injury. Accused Prem Singh, Daya Ram and Harnath were arrested by the police and Suresh, Ram Babu and Sri Krishna fled away. From the possession of Prem Singh one semi country made gun of 12 bore and six live cartridges, from the possession of Daya Ram, one country made gun and three live cartridges and from the possession of Harnath, one country made pistol and two live cartridges shown to have been recovered.

¶6

After framing charge, recording evidence, all accused were acquitted under Section 147, 148 and 307 IPC and two accused were convicted under Section 25 Arms Act, in S.T. No. 173 of 1988 vide order dated 27.06.1990 against this judgement

¶7

criminal appeal was filed and that was dismissed, hence this revision.

¶8

Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that on the same evidence the revisionist was acquitted under Sections 147, 148 and 307 IPC and was convicted under Section 25 Arms Act, hence on this very ground the revision is liable to be allowed.

¶9

Learned counsel for the revisionist further submitted that neither State appeal nor revision has been filed against the order of acquittal and that order is final, hence evidence produced by the prosecution is not reliable.

¶10

Learned counsel for the revisionist further submitted that there is major contradictions between the statement of prosecution witnesses of P.W.-1 Sarnam Singh, P.W.-2 Charan Singh Tomar and P.W.-3 B.D. Chaudhary, though they all are police personnel.

¶11

Learned counsel for the revisionist further submitted that no public witness has been produced by the prosecution whereas only three witnesses are examined and all are police personnel. No injury was found on the body of any injured or police personnel, hence all story appears to be false and fabricated. There is no criminal history against the revisionist/accused.

¶12

Learned AGA opposed and submitted that judgement passed by both the courts below are legal and that without infirmity, hence revision is liable to be dismissed.

¶13

Prem Singh and Harnath are reported to have been died. All accused were acquitted under Sections 147, 148 and 307 IPC, hence it is very clear that the story narrated by the police was found false by the trial court and finding on this point is final.

¶14

From the perusal of evidence it transpires that there are major contradiction between the statements of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 and the statement of investigating officer, the P.W.-3 and on that very ground the accused were acquitted under Sections 147, 148, and 307 IPC.

¶15

So far as the fire arm recovered from the revisionist, is not the arm, which are not available in ordinary course. The evidence of police personnel is without corroboration and without support of any public/independent witness.

¶16

In above back draft, this Court finds that offence under Section 25/27 Arms Act is not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the revisionist and revision is liable to be allowed.

¶17

The revision is allowed.

¶18

Judgements dated 03.01.1991 and 27.06.1990 passed by the appellate court as well as trial court are hereby set aside. Accused Daya Ram is acquitted under Section 25/27 Arms Act.

¶19

Office shall transmit the lower court record alongwith copy of this order to the concerned court for compliance.

¶20

Order Date :- 27.8.2018/VKG

Daya Ram v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Daya Ram v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Babloo Vs State of U.P.

Firoz Vs State of U.P.

Salauddin Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Sunita Devi and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others

Dilla @ Istkhar Vs State of U.P.

Ankit Vs State of U.P. and Another