Dismissed

Ram Prasad Baiswar v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC4 Dec 2019CRLR/1800/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a criminal revision filed against an acquittal order. Noting the absence of the revisionist and lack of material illegality or jurisdictional error, the court held the revision lacked merit. It observed that any pending Government Appeal would continue unaffected.

What did the court decide?

The revision was dismissed for lack of merit. Pending Government Appeal shall continue unaffected.

Ram Prasad Baiswar Vs State of U.P. and Others — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 55

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1800 of 2010

¶3

Revisionist :- Ram Prasad Baiswar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Ashok Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

¶4

Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

None present in the revised list from the side of revisionist, whereas, learned AGA is present for the State.

¶6

Heard learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶7

It is a revision pertaining to the year 2010, it appears from the order-sheet that this revision is still awaiting admission.

¶8

This revision has been filed against the judgement of acquittal passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/FTC, Sonbhadra, in Special Sessions Trial No. 10 of 2007 (State Vs. Madan Mohan Singh and others), Crime No. 367 of 2004, under section 427, 504 IPC and section 3(1)5 SC/ST Act, P.S. Anpara, District Sonbhadra.

¶9

From the perusal of the impugned judgement, it appears that on evidence, the learned trial court found that the fact witnesses given contradictory evidence in respect of the fact of breaking the wall and the accused persons abusing the complainant.

¶10

The fact witnesses was not able to even state when the said wall was constructed and there is lot of contradiction on this point also. The specific words used for abusing was not even stated by the witnesses of the fact. It has been also pointed out by the learned trial court that there was dispute with regard to abadi land between the both sides. The learned trial court also concluded that on evidence the charge under SC/ST Act was not

¶11

established as no caste word was used in the incident, therefore, finding that prosecution failed to establish the charge, the learned trial court acquitted the opposite party nos. 2 and 3.

¶12

Aggrieved by that order of acquittal this revision has been filed. There is none to show that there was material illegality, irregularity or any jurisdictional error committed by the learned trial court in passing the impugned judgement.

¶13

The revision lacks merit and the same is dismissed.

¶14

It is however observed that if any Government Appeal is pending in respect of the impugned judgement the same shall continue and shall be disposed of in accordance with law, and this judgement will not have any effect on the Government Appeal.

¶15

Order Date :- 4.12.2019

¶16

Bhanu

Ram Prasad Baiswar v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Prasad Baiswar 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

Issues for consideration

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Shahjahan Begum and Another Vs State of U.P.and Another

Ram Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pradeep Kumar Vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi

Smt. Sushila Singh Vs State of U.P.and Others

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Shakuntla and 2 Ors.

Shrawan Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. and Another