Dismissed

Pawan Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC5 Aug 2021CRLR/518/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed the revision filed challenging the Additional Sessions Judge's rejection of an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., holding there was no perversity in finding no prima facie case against the accused based on circumstantial evidence.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision filed by Pawan Kumar against the impugned order dated 05.12.2020 was rejected.

Pawan Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 86

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 518 of 2021

¶3

Revisionist :- Pawan Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Ashish Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pankaj Bharti

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A.

¶6

This Criminal Revision has been filed against the order dated 05.12.2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 11, Muzaffar Nagar, in S.T. No. 1507 of 2017 under Section 302, 201 I.P.C. P.S.Chhapar, District- Muzaffar Nagar whereby learned trial Court rejected the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. of the revisionist.

¶7

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.

¶8

Learned AGA and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has opposed the argument raised by the learned counsel for the revisionist and has submitted that the impugned order dated 18.2.2020, summoning the revisionist under Section 319 CrPC, was rightly passed.

¶9

I have gone through the materials available on record and the impugned order too.

¶10

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. It is a case of circumstantial evidence and during investigation mere assertion made by the alleged accused Rajkumar Tyagi to search the sugarcane field from where the dead body was recovered, cannot be inferred that the alleged accused is involved in the crime, the trial Judge has rightly reached on a conclusion that the alleged accused Rajkumar Tyagi was not in any manner connected with the crime only on the suspicion it cannot be said that prima facie case has been made out against the accused Rajkumar Tyagi. 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.

¶11

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.

¶12

Order Date :- 5.8.2021 Fhd.

Pawan Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Alias Salman Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Chhotelal and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sandeep Kol Vs State of Up and Another

Atul Kumar Singh @ Atul Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohammad Ashraf Vs State of U.P.

Rahul Sharma and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another