Revision petitioner sought quashing of a special sessions order rejecting an application to frame additional charges under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The High Court held the trial judge analyzed evidence correctly.
Revision rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 86
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 451 of 2020
Revisionist :- Prem Chand Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Hari Prakash Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ram Chandra Yadav
Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.
This revision has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 7.11.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No.5, Mainpuri in Special Sessions Trial No. 83 of 2016 arising out of Case Crime No. 237 of 2016 under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station- Aunchha, District- Mainpuri by which application of the revisionist under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been rejected.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that without looking evidence on record and statements of the prosecution witnesses Court below has rejected the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
Learned AGA has opposed the argument raised by the learned counsel for the revisionist and has submitted that the impugned order dated 7.11.2019 was rightly passed.
I have gone through the materials available on record and the impugned order too.
From perusal of the impugned order it appears that the trial Judge has rightly discussed the judgement of the Apex Court passed in Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. 2014 (85) SCC-313 and Brijendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan . The learned Court below has taken much pain in analyzing the evidence adduced before him. Hence, the finding recorded by the learned trial Court has no infirmity or illegality. Learned counsel for the revisionist failed to point out any infirmity or illegality in the order impugned.
In view of the discussion made above, I do not find any perversity or illegality in the order impugned and there is no justifiable ground for making any interference in it. Hence, revision fails and it is hereby rejected .
Order Date :- 28.9.2021 Fhd
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court's rejection of an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to frame additional charges was arbitrary or without evidence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Ors.Explained¶10
Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. 2014 (85) SCC-313 · Who else cites this
Brijendra Singh Vs. State of RajasthanExplained¶10
Brijendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Prem Chand
State Of U.P.
Umesh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
