Dismissed

State of U.P. v. Shiv Narayan and Othres

Allahabad HC26 Aug 2019GOVA/1192/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal for leave under Section 378 Cr.P.C., the Principal Sessions Judge rejected the application and dismissed the appeal, holding that the judgment of acquittal was not manifestly erroneous, perverse, or based on no material. The court concluded the trial court correctly appreciated facts and evidence regarding injuries sustained by the accused. Case dismissed 26.8.2019.

What did the court decide?

Application for leave to appeal refused; criminal appeal dismissed.

State of U.P. Vs Shiv Narayan and Othres — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 1192 of 2003

¶3

Appellant :- State Of U.P. Respondent :- Shiv Narayan And Othres Counsel for Appellant :- A.G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.

¶5

Heard learned A.G.A. on behalf of State of U.P. over application moved for grant of leave to appeal against judgment of acquittal dated 28.11.2002, passed by Court No. 4 of Additional Sessions Judge, Banda, in S.T. No. 78 of 2000; State Vs. Shiv Narayan and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 216 of 1999, u/s 308/34 I.P.C., P.S. Naraini, District Banda, with contention that the trial court failed to appreciate facts and law placed before it and passed impugned judgment of acquittal on the basis of doubtful presence of witness Sushil Kumar at the place of occurrence, prosecution witness Abrar being not named in First Information Report, there being contradiction in testimony of prosecution witnesses and they could not give explanation of injuries sustained by accused persons. Whereas all those evidence is there on record. Hence, this application with prayer for grant of leave to file this appeal.

¶6

As per record and impugned judgement, admitted fact was that accused Shiv Narayan, Rajesh Nigam, Chunna Yadav and informant Rajendra Kumar Nigam are step brothers and this place of occurrence was field inherited by them from their deceased father. Cross case, as N.C.R. No. 80-A of 1999 and N.C.R. No. 80 of 1999, was got registered at Police Station Naraini, on the same date of occurrence, by both sides against each other. This N.C.R. was investigated, in which charge sheet was filed, whereas in cross case version, present accused side were having injuries over their person, but neither it was investigated nor proceeded. While being cross-examined, PW-1 informant admitted the fact about place of occurrence and sequence of occurrence. Both sides were complaining this accusation against each other. In statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. specific plea of cross case was taken. DW-1 was examined, who had proved injuries of accused side. The medico legal report (Ext.Kha-2 and Ext.Kha-3) were proved by this witness and there was no explanation of those injuries by prosecution side. Place of occurrence was field, inherited by accused persons, over which they were working and complainant side reached there for raising protest, when this occurrence took place, in which both side received injuries. Trial court appreciated facts and law regarding occurrence,

¶7

sequence of occurrence and non-explanation of injuries received by accused side, thereby concluded with judgment of acquittal.

¶8

In Bhim Singh Vs. State of Haryana, (2002) 10 SCC 461 the Apex Court has held that where finding of acquittal is palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous and demonstratively unsustainable, judgment of acquittal may be interfered in appeal by the appellate court.

¶9

Law laid down by Apex Court in Jemni Bala Koteshwar Rao Vs. State of A.P., (2009) 10 SCC 636, K. Prakashan vs P.K. Surenderan, (2008)1 SCC 258 is regarding appeal against order of acquittal in which essential ingredients for interfering in judgment of acquittal has been propounded to be perversity, judgment based on no material and judgment suffering with legal infirmity.

¶10

Under section 378(3) Cr.P.C. provision for leave to appeal against judgment of acquittal by Legislature has been with a view that unnecessary appeal is not to be filed in routine, rather it should be checked as to whether there is substance for hearing a judgment of acquittal in appeal then leave to appeal is to be granted by the appellate court under above section.

¶11

Hence prima-facie existence of perversity, manifestly wrong or demonstratively unsustainability of judgment of acquittal is to be seen. Under all above facts and circumstances impugned judgment seems to be based on proper and correct perspective of law with correct appreciation of evidence. Thus, application for leave to appeal merits its rejection.

¶12

Accordingly, leave to appeal is refused and the application is rejected.

¶13

Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed.

¶14

Order Date :- 26.8.2019 NS

State of U.P. v. Shiv Narayan and Othres

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P. v. Shiv Narayan and Othres

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aas Mohammad Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Veer Pratap Singh @ Veeru @ Bhim Singh Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Shakib Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Anamika Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Ors.

Shankar Prasad @ Jugunu Vs State of U.P.

Ram Janam and Others Vs State of U.P.