Dismissed

Jeetu Singh v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC10 Jun 2020CRLR/938/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal revision challenging an order of judicial remand. The applicant contended the court failed to conduct an identity test and wrongly relied on a Gram Pradhan report, as the accused named in the FIR differed from his identity. The Court held it had taken sufficient steps, findings were clear, and the revision was devoid of merit.

What the court decided

AI extract

Jeetu Singh Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 39

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 938 of 2020

¶3

Revisionist :- Jeetu Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Revisionist :- Jitendra Prasad Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ram Raj Prajapati,Virpratap Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Dinesh Kumar Maurya holding brief of Sri Ram Raj Prajapati learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A.

¶6

The order dated 3.1.2020 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Hamirpur regarding judicial remand of the applicant is subject matter of challenge in the present revision.

¶7

The submission is that the aforesaid order suffers from material illegality and procedural irregularity, inasmuch as, the Court concerned did not conduct any identification test to ascertain the identity of the accused Jeetu Singh.

¶8

The submission is that the applicant herein is Jeetu Singh son of Goli Singh, resident of Village Bhulasi, Police Station Sisolar, District Hamirpur, whereas the accused person is some other person named as Shivjeet Singh son of Vijay Singh.

¶9

It is contended that identity of Jeetu Singh cannot be co-related with Shivjeet Singh son of Vijay Singh. The accused person indicated in the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is, thus, a different person from that of the applicant Jeetu Singh. The Court below had committed material illegality in relying upon the report of the Gram Pradhan to come to a conclusion that Shivjeet Singh son of Vijay Singh is also known as Jeetu Singh son of Vijay Singh @ Rajendra Singh @ Goli Singh; and that Shivjeet Singh son of Vijay Singh and Jeetu Singh son of Goli Singh are one and the same person.

¶10

Having considered the above submissions and perused the order passed by the Court below, it is found that the Court below in order to ascertain the identity of the accused directed the Superintendent of Police, Hamirpur, who conducted an enquiry at the level of the Circle Officer. The police report based on the report of the Gram Pradhan submitted through the Circle Officer indicated that Shivjeet Singh Parihar is also known as @ Jeetu Singh who is son of Rajendra Singh @ Vijay Singh @

¶11

Goli Singh and is original resident of Village Bhulasi, Police Station Sisolar, District Hamirpur. He, however, has prepared an Aadhar Card carrying the address of his maternal home namely Kushmanda Nagar, Ghatampur, Kanpur Nagar. It was further found that after an application was submitted on 30.7.2019, for taking the accused on remand the person who appeared before the Court had objected that he was Shivjeet Singh Parihar son of Vijay Singh Parihar, resident of Kushmanda Nagar, Ghatampur, Kanpur Nagar and the police had arrested him on wrong identity. Prior to that, Shivjeet Singh Parihar gave a surrender application before the Court saying that the police was trying to arrest him on a wrong identity. A copy of the Aadhar Card was produced by the applicant before the Court to assert he was not a wanted accused, the application to take him into custody as such was rejected on 24.9.2018. Same person had again been arrested on the warrant issued by the Court.

¶12

Be that as it may, a perusal of the order passed by the Court below clearly indicates that before issuance of the warrant, the Court has taken sufficient steps to ascertain the identity of the accused named in Case Crime No. 3 of 2018 under Sections 363, 366 IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act, 2012, Police Station Sisolar, District Hamirpur lodged on 21.1.2018. The name of Jeetu Singh son of Goli Singh has come up in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The present revision has been filed by the revisionist known as Jeetu Singh son of Goli Singh. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant that the accused named in the first information report lodged on 21.1.2018 is a different person and the revisionist herein is not an accused is not found convincing. The assertion of the applicant that his father Vijay Singh is not known as Goli Singh is also not substantiated from the record. No illegality much less procedural irregularity has been found in the order impugned.

¶13

The revision is found devoid of merits and hence dismissed .

¶14

It is made clear that the observations made herein are only to the extent of appreciation of the validity of the order passed by the Court below, in order to entertain the present revision. Any observations made hereinabove would not be taken against the revisionist in any of the future proceedings.

¶15

Order Date :- 10.6.2020 Brijesh

Jeetu Singh v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Jeetu Singh v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Mala Devi Vs State of U.P.

Girish Chandra Yadav @ Hariom Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shailendra Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Pramod Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

M/S Maa Aadi Shakti Constructions Vs State of Up and Another

Harprasad Vs State of U.P. and Another