The Allahabad High Court condoned a 198-day delay in filing an appeal against an acquittal. The bench refused leave to appeal and dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial court's acquittal of the accused for murder as circumstantial evidence failed to form a complete chain of proof.
Leave to appeal refused; appeal and memorandum of appeal dismissed.
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.
Chief Justice’s Court Daily Cause List Serial No.40
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
(Lucknow)
*******
U/s 378 Cr.P.C. No. 38 of 2005 State of Uttar Pradesh . ..Applicant/appellant Through: Shri Arunendra, Additional Government Advocate v/s Ram Manohar ...Opposite party
CORAM: HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL,CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE NARENDRA KUMAR JOHARI, JUDGE
ORDER
NARENDRA KUMAR JOHARI, J.
Criminal Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 204 of 2005:
2 U/s 378 Cr.P.C. No. 38 of 2005
Order on Application under Section 378 Cr.P.C.:
3 U/s 378 Cr.P.C. No. 38 of 2005
4 U/s 378 Cr.P.C. No. 38 of 2005
evidence the statement of witness PW 2 Rameshwar was found to be inadmissible. PW 3 Arvind Kumar @ Fakkad stated in his evidence that on that day he had seen that deceased was coming out with accused from Picture Hall at 6-6.30 O'clock. Witness has further admitted that he had talked to the deceased and accused person also. Further the witness has accepted that he has enmity with accused, as the accused once had beaten him by lathies. Apart from that, this witness is well known by informant but this witness PW 3 has not informed to informant about last seen of accused with deceased, and F.I.R. was lodged by informant against unknown accused. The witness PW 3 is the resident of the same village and the deceased was missing from 03.05.2001 and his dead body was found after 3-4 days from the date of missing. Although ante mortem injuries were found on the body of the deceased in the Post Mortem Report but there is nothing on record, which may prove that it is accused Ram Manohar who has committed murder of the deceased. In the light of above evidence, the trial court concluded that the witnesses of prosecution are not credible.
5 U/s 378 Cr.P.C. No. 38 of 2005
the case of Padala Veera Reddi Vs. State of A.P., AIR 1990 SC 90 , as under :-
"1. The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established.
6 U/s 378 Cr.P.C. No. 38 of 2005
conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.
(Narendra Kumar Johari, J.) (Rajesh Bindal, C.J.)
Lucknow December 9, 2021 ML/Manish Himwan
Whether the order is speaking : Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No
Digitally signed by MUNNA LAL Date: 2022.02.24 14:56:04 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the 198 day delay in filing appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C. should be condoned.
Whether the appellate court should interfere with the trial court's acquittal of the accused in a murder case based on circumstantial evidence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Roop Singh @ Roopa Vs. State of PunjabExplained¶28
Roop Singh @ Roopa Vs. State of Punjab, 2008 CrLJ 3184 SC
Padala Veera Reddi Vs. State of A.P.Explained¶28
Padala Veera Reddi Vs. State of A.P., AIR 1990 SC 90 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
State of Uttar Pradesh
Ram Manohar
Rajesh Bindal
Narendra Kumar Johari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
