Dismissed

State of U.P. v. Divakar Bhatt

Allahabad HC8 Apr 2019GOVA/3200/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court dismissed a Government appeal against an order acquitting the respondent under the Explosive Substances Act. The lower court acquitted due to lack of independent witnesses and prior enmity. The High Court found no illegality or jurisdictional error in the acquittal and dismissed the appeal at the admission stage.

What did the court decide?

Leave to appeal was rejected and the Government appeal was dismissed at the admission stage.

State of U.P. Vs Divakar Bhatt — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 44

¶2

Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 3200 of 2008

¶3

Appellant :- State Of U.P. Respondent :- Divakar Bhatt Counsel for Appellant :- Govt.Advocate

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri D.N. Tiwari, learned AGA for the State and perused the impugned judgment.

¶6

This Government appeal has been preferred under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C. against judgment and order dated 7.1.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/FTC No.2, Mirzapur in Session Trial No. 306 of 1999 arising out of Case Crime No.320 of 1995, Police Station Vindhyachal, District Mirzapur acquitting opposite party Divakar Bhatt under Section 3/5 Explosive Substances Act.

¶7

Learned AGA submitted that impugned judgment and order acquitting accused-opposite party is wholly illegal, perverse and against the evidence on record, hence is liable to be set aside.

¶8

According to prosecution case, on 5.10.1995 at 16:40 hour SO Ravi Shankar Mishra alongwith his team arrested three persons namely, Divakar Bhatt with two live bombs (one in right hand and another in his left pocket of pant), Dileep Kumar with countrymade pistol with two live cartridges and Alok Malviya with two live cartridges. Bombs recovered from opposite party were defused.

¶9

After framing of charge, two witnesses namely, P.W.1 Ravi Shankar Mishra and P.W.-2 D.K. Singh were examined as witnesses of facts. P.W.3 Constable No. 360 Shankar Ram was also examined. Statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied charges and stated that he had been implicated due to enmity. After hearing learned counsel for opposite party as well as Government Advocate, impugned order was passed.

¶10

The trial Court acquitted opposite party on the ground that no independent witness was produced according to settled law in Karamjeet Singh vs. State of Delhi Administration reported in 2003 SCC 1001 and it was also held that there was previous enmity between opposite party with some other persons. Socalled article allegedly recovered was general in nature and are easily available in market and opposite party was not criminal

¶11

person. No criminal history has been shown against the opposite party.

¶12

Since the incident is of 1995 and 23 years have elapsed, no fruitful purpose would be served in issuing notice to opposite party.

¶13

This Court finds no illegality, impropriety, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. View taken by lower Court is plausible view, hence no interference is called for in appeal.

¶14

In above backdrop, leave to appeal is rejected and consequently, Government appeal is dismissed at the admission stage on merit.

¶15

Copy of this order alongwith record of lower Court, if any be transmitted to the Court concerned within a week.

¶16

Order Date :- 8.4.2019 P.P.

State of U.P. v. Divakar Bhatt

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P. v. Divakar Bhatt

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhagwan Singh Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Ranviri Devi Vs State of U.P.

Budha Singh @ Atees Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Aslam Vs State of U.P.

Ram Sakhi Vs State of U.P.

Gulab Vs State of U.P.