In a Hindu Undivided Family Partition Suit, the Supreme Court permitted the applicant to set aside a prior settlement by the HUF and ordered a fresh partition suit.
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. - 51
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 6183 of 2006
Appellant :- State Of U.P. Respondent :- Pradeep Chandra Counsel for Appellant :- Govt. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- Devendra Vikram Singh
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard Sri Patanjali Mishra, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State against the judgment and order dated 21.03.2006 by means of which accused-respondent has been acquitted of the offence under Sections 302/34, 411 IPC, Section 3 of the Explosives Substances Act, 1908 and Section 7 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013. Also heard Sri D.V. Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused-respondent.
We have heard the parties at length and have perused the finding recorded by the trial court. The lower court record is also available. Even though learned A.G.A. has very strongly pressed the application seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 21.03.2006, however, the fact remains that it is not being disputed that all the witnesses of fact were declared hostile and not a single witness has supported the prosecution case. It is also an admitted position on record that as far as recovery of sten gun is concerned, the same is disbelieved by the court concerned and the accused have been acquitted under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. It is virtually a case of no evidence.
No illegality or perversity has been attributed to the finding of the trial court while returning the verdict of acquittal and hence, no case of indulgence has been made out.
Accordingly, the application seeking leave to appeal is rejected . Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed .
Copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for consequential follow up action.
Order Date :- 22.11.2018 I. Batabyal
State Of U.P.
Pradeep Chandra
Vipin Sinha
Umesh Chandra Tripathi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
