Dismissed

State of U.P. v. Naushad and Others

Allahabad HC12 Apr 2019GOVA/7720/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, in a Government appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C., dismissed the State's challenge against the acquittal of respondents. Upholding the lower court finding that there was no independent witness, contradictory statements, and false recovery, the Court held the view plausible and found no illegality, dismissing the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The Government appeal is dismissed; stay order vacated; copy of order directed to concerned court.

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

¶1

Court No. - 44

¶2

Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 7720 of 2008

¶3

Appellant :- State Of U.P. Respondent :- Naushad And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Govt. Advocate

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

1- Heard Sri D.N. Tiwari (B.H.), learned counsel appearing for the State and perused the record.

¶6

2- This Government appeal has been preferred (under Section 378 Cr.P.C.) by the State against opposite party nos. 1 to 3, namely, Naushad, Matloob and Raheesh against the judgment and order dated 21.6.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C. No. 4, Muzaffar Nagar in S.T. No. 239 of 2008, arising out of Case Crime No. 163 of 2003, under Sections 398/401 I.P.C., Police Station Civil Line, District Muzaffar Nagar, in S.T. No. 240 of 2008, arising out of Case Crime No. 164 of 2003, under Section 25/4 of Arms Act, Police Station Civil Line, District Muzaffar Nagar, in S.T. No. 241 of 2008, arising out of Case Crime No. 165 of 2003, under Section 25/4 of Arms Act, Police Station Civil Line, District Muzaffar Nagar and in S.T. No. 242 of 2008, arising out of Case Crime No. 166 of 2008, under Section 25/4 of Arms Act, Police Station Civil Line, District Muzaffar Nagar whereby opposite party nos.1 to 3 were acquitted under Sections 398/401 I.P.C. and 25/4 of Arms Act in all the sessions trial.

¶7

3- According to prosecution case, on 19.3.2003, the Police had arrested the opposite party nos. 1 to 3, namely, Naushad, Matloob and Raheesh and some articles including knife, etc. were recovered from them and they stated that they have attempted to robbery and dacoity belonging to a gang.

¶8

4- A case was registered. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted and charges were framed against opposite party nos. 1 to 3.

¶9

5- After hearing learned counsel for opposite parties no. 1 to 3 and District Government Counsel (Criminal), the impugned judgment and order was passed and opposite parties no. 1 to 3 were acquitted. Hence this State appeal.

¶10

6- Learned A.G.A. submitted that the impugned judgment was passed wrongly and is against the evidence on record and law. There is sufficient evidence to convict the opposite parties no. 1 to 3 but they were wrongly acquitted.

¶11

7- From perusal of the record, it transpires that opposite parties no. 1 to 3 were acquitted on the ground that there was no independent witness. It was not shown that the opposite parties no. 1 to 3 were habitual offenders. Major contradiction was found in the statements of the witnesses. So called recovery of arms were found false. No evidence was produced to prove that there was a gang. So called recoveries are general in nature which are available in the market easily. Except the Police personnel nobody was present at the time of incident of so called recoveries Place of occurrence is also not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

¶12

8- It is pertinent to mention here that the incident is of the year 2003; sixteen years period have been lapsed and no useful purpose would be served in issuing notices to opposite party nos. 1 to 3.

¶13

9- The view taken by the court below is a plausible view. Hence no interference is called for in Government appeal.

¶14

10- This Court finds no illegality, impropriety, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned judgment. The Government appeal is dismissed.

¶15

11- Stay order, if any, is vacated.

¶16

12- Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the court concerned along with lower court record immediately for compliance and necessary action.

¶17

13- Application for leave to appeal is rejected and the Government appeal is also dismissed.

¶18

Order Date :- 12.4.2019 OP

State of U.P. v. Naushad and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P. v. Naushad and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravindra Nath Pandey Vs State of U.P.

Shivpal Singh Vs State of U.P.

Janardan Vs State of U.P.

Rakesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Nanni Vs State of U.P.

Veermati Vs State of U.P.