The High Court dismissed the State's government appeal seeking leave to appeal against the acquittal of accused persons in a case involving assault with weapons. The court found the trial court's view possible based on available reasoning.
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. - 13
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 2949 of 2001
Appellant :- State Of U.P. Respondent :- Sarvar & Others Counsel for Appellant :- R.P.Dubey /G.A.
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned A.G.A. for the State-appellant.
By way of instant government appeal, prayer has been made on behalf of State-appellant to grant leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 25.05.2001 passed by VIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar in Sessions Trial No. 163 of 1995 (State v. Sarvar and others) whereby the accusedrespondents - Sarvar, Anwar, Bhoora @ Israel and Furkan were acquitted of the charge under Sections 323/34, 324/34 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC'), Police Station - Purkazi, District - Muzaffarnagar.
As per prosecution version, on 02.04.1991 at about 07.00 P.M., accused-respondents - Sarvar, Anwar, Bhoora and Furkan having blunt object 'lathi-danda' and sharp-edged weapon 'ballam' and 'tabal' assaulted the informant Sharif, Babu and Jarif, due to which they sustained injuries.
From the perusal of the impugned judgment, it is evident that cross case of this incidence was lodged at Case Crime No. 69 of 1991 under Sections 307, 326, 324 and 452 of IPC against the informant side.
From the accused side, Sarvar and Anwar have sustained injury, including firearm injury, which is not explained by the prosecution. In the FIR, it is also not narrated that from the prosecution side, Mohd. Hanif has also sustained any injury. Mohd. Hanif was medically examined, but according to medical examination, he has also sustained firearm injury.
Accordingly, the order of acquittal does not require any interference. The view taken by the learned trial court is possible one, based on reasoning.
In view of above, the application seeking leave to appeal is rejected and consequently, the instant appeal stands dismissed .
Order Date :- 2.8.2018 I. Batabyal
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court's acquittal of the accused in an assault case.
Whether the inconsistencies in injuries sustained by prosecution and accused witnesses warrant quashing of acquittal.
5 provisions across 1 enactments
State Of U.P.
Sarvar
Anwar
Bhoora @ Israel
Furkan
Umesh Chandra Tripathi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
