Uma Karan v. State

Court No. - 46

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 770 of 1991

Revisionist :- Uma Karan Opposite Party :- State Counsel for Revisionist :- P.K. Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.

List revised.

None present from the side of the revisionist.

This Criminal Revision has been directed against the common judgement and order dated 26.02.1991 passed by the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur in Criminal Appeal No. 92 of 1990 upholding the sentencing of the revisionist under Section 25 Arms Act by the trial court in Crime No. 17 of 1990 and Crime No. 44 of 1995, both of P.S. Jahanabad, under Section 25 of Arms Act, District Fatehpur vide orders dated 6.1.1990 & 7.9.1990 respectively without challenging the order of trial court.

In the grounds of revision, it has been mentioned that the Appellate Court as well as trial court were not legally justified in passing the conviction order because they did not consider the contradiction in the statements of P.W.3, Arivand Misra, Inspector, C.B.C.I.D., Allahabad who had stated that the revisionist had told his name as Gore Lal whereas P.W.1 in his statement has stated that the revisionist's name was Uma Karan. No proper appreciation has been made of the evidence by the trial court. Out of four witnesses of fact only two had been examined as P.W.1 and P.W.3 and all of them were police witnesses. No public witness and independent witness has been examined by the prosecution. As per statements of the witnesses of this case, occurrence is fictitious and imaginary. The confession by the revisionist regarding Crime No. 13 under Section 395 I.P.C. has been made under police custody, hence, was not admissible. The cases registered against him, were false. The prosecution regarding recovery of illegal arms from the possession of accused-revisionist is false and has shown to be by him in presence of police. The trial court considered evidence on record and has given the benefit to the revisionist of first offender and has, accordingly, passed sentence in view of Section 360 Cr.P.C., according him the benefit of U.P. First Offenders' Probation Act, 1938. The sentence passed by the appellate court as well as the trial court are highly unjust,