Dismissed

State of U.P. v. Jitturam and Others

Allahabad HC7 May 2019GOVA/8510/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

State preferred a government appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C. challenging an acquittal order by a Special Judge. The High Court found no illegality, impropriety, or material irregularity in the acquittal, noting contradictions in prosecution evidence and a stale complaint. The appeal was dismissed at the admission stage on merit, and leave to appeal was rejected.

What did the court decide?

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

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

¶1

Court No. - 77

¶2

Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 8510 of 2007

¶3

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

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri K.P. Tiwari, learned Brief Holder for the State and perused the impugned judgment.

¶6

This Government appeal has been preferred under Section 378 Cr.P.C. alongwith application for leave to appeal against judgment and order dated 24.8.2007 passed by Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act, Varanasi in Session Trial No. 398 of 1998(State vs. Jitturam and others) arising out of Case Crime No.67A/1991, Police Station Badagaon, District Varanasi acquitting opposite party Nos.1 to 8 Jitturam, Meetaram, Sita, Prem Sagar, Lakkhan, Bind, Kamlesh and Chhotey Lal under Sections 147, 323, 435, 506 IPC.

¶7

Learned Brief Holder submitted that impugned judgment and order acquitting accused-opposite parties is wholly illegal, perverse and bad in the eyes of law, hence is liable to be set aside.

¶8

According to prosecution case, on 16.4.1991 at 7 A.M. they set on fire the crop of wheat and beat Rang Nath Triathi(complainant), Mahenra Mishra and Vijay Nath Mishra.

¶9

Injured were examined by doctor. Rang Nath Tripathi received four injuries, out of which injury nos. 1 and 3 were simple in nature. Mahendra Mishra received three injuries and Vijay Nath Mishra one injury but according to opinion of doctor, all injuries were simple in nature.

¶10

Case was registered and after investigation, charge sheet was submitted against opposite parties. After framing of charge, prosecution examined P.W.1 Vijay Nath Mishra, P.W.-2 Mahendra Kumar Mishra, P.W.3 Dr. A.K. Singh, P.W.4 Rang Nath Tiwari and P.W.-5 Inspector Jeet Bahadur Singh(Investigating Officer). Statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They stated that they have been falsely implicated and there is a cross case.

¶11

After hearing learned counsel for accused as well as Assistant Government Advocate, impugned order was passed. Hence this appeal.

¶12

From perusal of record, it transpires that there are several contradictions between statements of facts i.e. P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.4. It also transpires that there was a cross case being Case Crime No. 67 of 1991 and place of occurrence was not proved properly. There was dispute of land between the parties. Initially case was registered under Section 307 IPC but no injury was found, hence Section 307 IPC was altered. It shows that FIR was lodged after thought with legal consultation and by improvements. Several improvements were made to make cross case against opposite parties in private defence. Several litigation were going on between the parties. According to doctor, all injuries of injured caused by hard and blunt object, were found simple in nature.

¶13

It is also pertinent to mention here that since incident is of 1991 and twenty seven years have elapsed, no fruitful purpose would be served in issuing notice to the opposite parties.

¶14

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.

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

Order Date :- 7.5.2019 P.P.

State of U.P. v. Jitturam and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P. v. Jitturam 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

State of U.P. Vs Har Prasad and Others

Smt. Malti Vs State of U.P.

Ranjeet Kumar @ Banti Vs State of U.P.

Achhey Lal Upadhyay Vs State of U.P.

State of U.P. Vs Hakim Singh and Others

State of U.P. Vs Rajiv @ Bablu and Others