Criminal revision preferred against conviction under Sections 147 and 323 IPC for affray and voluntarily causing hurt. The High Court found no illegality in the lower court's order rejecting defence evidence and dismissed the revision.
CrR No. 677 of 1992 stands dismissed, thereby affirming the conviction and sentence of the accused.
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. - 677 of 1992
Revisionist :- Shahid Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- B.N. Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard Sri Venu Gopal, Advocate holding brief of Sri B.N. Tiwari, learned counsel for the revisionists and Sri L.D. Rajbhar, learned A.G.A., for the State.
This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 1.5.1992 passed by III Additional Sessions Judge, Ballia in Sessions Trial No. 38 of 1989 (State Vs. Shahid and others) whereby revisionists/accused Shahid, Muzahid, Jahid, Alamgir, Rafiq, Sher Mohammad, Ahatesham, Kasemmullah, Sarfaraj, Nasirullah, Aslam, Shahzada, Kudrat, Juber and Ziauddin were convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 147 and 323 Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") and sentenced :-
(i) to pay fine of Rs. 100/- under Section 147 IPC and to pay fine of Rs. 100/- under Section 323/149 IPC.
(ii) In case of default in payment of fine, accused were directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each.
As per prosecution version, on 21.5.1987 at about 10:00 AM due to dispute with regard to plucking of Mango, revisionists/accused Shahid, Muzahid, Jahid, Alamgir, Rafiq, Sher Mohammad, Ahatesham, Kasemmullah, Sarfaraj, Nasirullah, Aslam, Shahzada,
Kudrat, Juber and Ziauddin arrived at the spot and assaulted on complainant Mahangu Chaudhari and his companion Jagmohan Prasad, Gajender Prasad, Prabhunath Prasad and Manturni. Due to which, they sustained injuries. On the basis of evidence on record, learned Additional Sessions Judge has passed the impugned order.
Learned counsel appearing for the revisionists contended that grove land belongs to revisionists/accused. From accused side Shahid and Aslam have sustained injuries which is not explained by the prosecution, even though, learned Additional Sessions Judge has passed the impugned order.
Learned A.G.A., contended that there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
Perused the impugned order.
The Additional Sessions Judge has observed that defence could not prove the fact that accused Shahid and Aslam have sustained injuries during the course of the incidence. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has further held that defence has failed to prove that grove land belongs to themselves. The judgment passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge is based on evidence and is not perverse. Therefore, I find no illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Court.
Consequently, this criminal revision stands dismissed .
Order Date:- 18.5.2018
Jaswant
1 issue framed by the court
Whether there is any illegality in the impugned judgment and order convicting the accused?
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Shahid
State Of U.P.
Umesh Chandra Tripathi
Jaswant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
