Dismissed

Mahipal v. State of U.P.and Others

Allahabad HC2 Dec 2019CRLR/1377/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision dismissed. The revision was filed against a judgment acquitting accused persons under Section 308/34 IPC. The revisionist failed to point out any jurisdictional error or illegality. As factual controversies and intricacies cannot be examined in revision, the matter was held to lack merit and was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Revision dismissed as it lacked merit and no jurisdictional error was shown.

Mahipal Vs State of U.P.and Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 55

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1377 of 2001

¶3

Revisionist :- Mahipal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Dharmednra Singhal Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate

¶4

Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

Shri Dharmendra Singhal, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A are present.

¶6

Heard on revision.

¶7

This revision has been filed against the judgement of 3rdAdditional Sessions Judge, Aligarh in S.T No. 1037 of 1997 (State Vs. Ramvir and others) under Section 308/34 I.P.C, Police Station Gonda, District Aligarh in which by the impugned judgement dated 05.05.2001, opposite party no. 2, Ramveer and opposite party no. 3, Devi Ram have been acquitted from the above charge.

¶8

It appears from the perusal of the lower court record and the impugned judgement that P.W-6 who was injured witness in the case could not give sufficient support to the prosecution version and consequently his statement and statements of other fact witnesses become contradictory in all respect, therefore, the learned trial court found the whole prosecution version to be unbelievable and unnatural. More over P.W-1, did not support the prosecution version and he stated that he did not see the incident. The learned trial court on evidence also found that from the evidence of the injured witness, it appears that he could not see anybody assaulting him. Similar is the view in respect of other fact witnesses, therefore, the learned trial court found that there was material contradiction between the statements of the fact witnesses and injured witness in respect of weapon used in the commission of the crime.

¶9

From the perusal of the record, it appears that this revision pertains to the year 2001 and it is still awaiting for admission.

¶10

The jurisdiction, so far as the revision is concerned is very limited and in revision the factual controversies and intricacies cannot be taken into account. It has not been shown that if the said conclusion is arrived by the learned trial court, what was the irregularity or illegality in the said conclusion. It is also not been shown that while arriving at the said conclusion, the

¶11

learned trial court committed any jurisdictional error.

¶12

In view of the above the revision lacks merit, hence, dismissed.

¶13

Order Date :- 2.12.2019 PS

Mahipal v. State of U.P.and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahipal v. State of U.P.and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kabool Singh Vs the State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Usha Devi Vs Munendra Pal Singh and Another

Ajit Singh Vs State of U.P.

Ghaseeta Vs Dal Chand and Others

Smt. Pushpa Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jagdish Prasad Dwivedi Vs State of U.P. and Another