Dismissed

Baijnath Tiwari v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC23 Dec 2021CRLR/202/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision petition sought to overturn an acquittal by the Additional Sessions Judge. The High Court held that the trial court's inference was well-reasoned and based on proper evidence appreciation. The petition was dismissed as the revision lacked merits.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. was dismissed.

Baijnath Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and Others — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Chief Justice’s Court Additional Cause List Serial No. 3

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶3

(Lucknow)

¶4

¶5

Criminal Revision No. 202 of 2006

¶6

Baijnath Tiwari ...Revisionist

¶7

Through: Sharad Nandan Ojha, Counsel for the revisionist

¶8

vs.

¶9

State of U.P. and others

¶10

...Opposite party

¶11

Through: Ms. Smiti Sahay, Additional Government Advocate

¶12

CORAM: HON’BLE RAJESH BINDAL, CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE NARENDRA KUMAR JOHARI, JUDGE

¶13

ORDER

¶14

HON’BLE NARENDRA KUMAR JOHARI, J.

¶15

The present criminal revision has been filed by Baijnath Tiwari under Sections 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. against judgment and order dated 17.4.2006 passed by Additional sessions Judge/F.T.C. VI, Pratapgarh in Sessions Trial No. 451 of 1999 under Sections 307 read with Sections 34, 325 IPC acquitting the accused

¶16

¶17

Crl. Revision No. 202 of 2006

¶18

persons Suresh Pratap, Rajendra Pratap and Ram Sundar from all the charges.

¶19

Brief facts of the case are that on 28.10.1996 when informant Baijnath Tiwari was returning to his house after defecation at about 7 AM, he saw that accused persons Suresh Pratap, Rajendra Pratap and Ram Sundar were planting ‘Aamla’ plants in the grove of the informant. When the informant opposed the accused persons for their illegal act, they abused and beat him by ‘lathi’, danda, axe, fists, legs and whomp. On his crying and raising voice for help, Parasnath Tiwari, Rajesh Kumar Tiwari and other persons of village reached on the spot to rescue the informant, thereafter the accused persons fled away by abusing the informant.

¶20

On the information, N.C.R. No. 60 of 1996 was lodged against accused persons under Sections 323 and 504 IPC in police station concerned. After that, the informant approached to the court of competent jurisdiction under Section 156(3) for lodging the FIR under proper sections. After order of the Magistrate, FIR was registered under Section 307 read with Sections 34 and 125 IPC.

¶21

After completing investigation, the investigating officer submitted charge sheet against accused persons under Sections 325, 308, 323, 504 IPC. The court framed charges against them. They denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶22

In the trial, on behalf of prosecution, Baijnath Tiwari, Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, S.I. Man Singh Yadav, Dr. R.P. Singh, Mahendra Dutt Rai, Constable, Nagendra Bahadur Singh deposed as prosecution witnesses PW-1 to PW-6.

¶23

After completion of the prosecution evidence, the statements of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they stated that informant himself had released his buffalo in the field of accused persons for grazing, which caused damage of the plants in their field. Informant also removed the trees of ‘Aamla’ and ’Chilbil’ from their field and on opposition by accused Ram Sunder, the

¶24

¶25

Crl. Revision No. 202 of 2006

¶26

informant as well as other family members of informant side beat him for which a cross case was lodged by accused against informant and other persons of informant side. The informant himself was trying to occupy and encroach the land of accused persons by illegal means.

¶27

The learned trial court, after hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as evidence available on record, concluded that prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused persons from all the charges, against which present revision has been filed by the informant Baijnath Tiwari.

¶28

According to the report of CJM, Pratapgarh dated 20.7.2017, opposite party no. 4, Ram Sunder had died during the pendency of present case, hence, the revision stands abated qua opposite party no. 4, Ram Sundar.

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶30

The learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the trial court could not assess the evidence of prosecution properly and acquitted accused wrongly and illegally. Accused be convicted for the offence charged. The judgment impugned is liable to be set aside. Accordingly the revision in hand deserves to be allowed.

¶31

A perusal of the record indicates that witness PW-1 Baijnath Tiwari, who is the informant, stated the same facts in his evidence as mentioned in the FIR. PW-2, Rajesh Kumar Tiwari although stated in his examination-in-chief that he had seen that accused persons were beating informant, however, in cross examination he admitted that when he (witness PW-2) reached at the place of occurrence, he found that injured Baijnath Tiwari was lying down there. The above fact indicates that the PW-2 was not present at the spot when the incident occurred and he had not seen that the injured had received injury by axe, therefore, it can be

¶32

¶33

Crl. Revision No. 202 of 2006

¶34

inferred that witness PW-2 reached on the spot after hearing the voice of Baijnath Tiwari after the incident.

¶35

It has been proved on the basis of evidence produced by parties on record that the disputed land was under the ownership of accused persons. Proceeding of demarcation of land was initiated and decided by the concerned court. The court had passed the order in favour of Ram Sunder and others, against which the informant had filed his objection which too was rejected by the concerned court. Thereafter, the informant filed appeal before the Commissioner assailing the rejection of his objection which was also dismissed.

¶36

The fact has been established by the evidence on record that when intercepted by the informant, accused persons were digging pits in their own land for plantation of trees. At the same time, the persons of informant side started quarrel saying that the land belongs to them and when the accused persons opposed, the fight took place in which persons of both the side received injuries hence, the accused persons also lodged a cross case against the informant.

¶37

PW-1 and PW-2 in their evidences stated that, at the time of occurrence, only pits were being dug by the accused persons and no plant was planted in the said pits. The place of dispute falls in the area purchased by accused. It has also been concluded by trial court that informant was the aggressor in the occurrence of ‘marpeet’. At the time of lodging of N.C.R., neither any injury was found on the body of informant by police nor any such injury has been mentioned in G.D. concerned. The X-ray examination of alleged head injury of injured Baijnath Tiwari was not done at the District Hospital, Pratapgarh. Rather it was done at T.B. Sapru Hospital, Allahabad. The explanation regarding aforesaid X-ray examination being conducted by the hospital of remote area has not been found plausible and reliable. Hence, after considering the entire evidence, the trial court acquitted the accused persons from all the charges.

¶38

¶39

Crl. Revision No. 202 of 2006

¶40

In cases initiated on police report, it is the State which is the aggrieved party and generally complainant has no locus standi to file revision. The order of trial court acquitting accused, if, is perverse and causes miscarriage of justice, certainly can be interfered with by the High Court even on revision of complainant. Though revision against acquittal filed by complainant is maintainable, but the revisional power in such cases is exercised by the High Court only in exceptional cases, particularly where interest of justice requires interference for correcting manifest illegality, which may cause miscarriage of justice. It is well settled that where no glaring mistake in appreciation of evidence or manifest error on the point of law is found, no interference is called for. In other words, it can be said that the scope of interference in criminal revision against the judgment of acquittal is very narrow and on limited grounds where glaring perverse findings have been recorded by the trial court or vital evidence on record is found to have been overlooked, which if considered, may change the result of trial. The revisional court should not interfere in revision simply because a different view other than the trial court’s view is possible on the basis of evidence on record.

¶41

Considering the matrix above, we are of the view that no illegality or perversity is found in impugned judgment. It is well reasoned and the inference of trial court is based on proper appreciation of evidence. No illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error is found in impugned judgment. The revision has no force, hence, deserves to be dismissed.

¶42

Accordingly, the revision lacks merits and is hereby dismissed.

¶43

(Narendra Kumar Johari, J.) (Rajesh Bindal, C.J.)

¶44

Lucknow December 23, 2021 Amit/AHA

¶45

Whether the order is speaking:Yes/No Whether the order is reportable:Yes/No

¶46

Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR Date: 2022.03.15 16:06:55 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Baijnath Tiwari v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baijnath Tiwari v. State of U.P. 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 Ram Asrey and 2 Ors.

State of U.P. Vs Nazim Ali and Another

State of U.P. Vs Gulam Husain and Another

Baijnath Tiwari and Others Vs State of U.P.

State of U.P. Vs Jitendra

State of U.P. Vs Awadhesh Singh @ Guddu