High Court disposed of a criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. challenging an acquittal. The court held there was no manifest error, perversity, or illogicality in the trial court's judgment and dismissed the revision at the admission stage.
The criminal revision was dismissed at the admission stage with no finding on merits.
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. - 31
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 911 of 2017
Revisionist :- Ram Naresh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Ors. Counsel for Revisionist :- Sanjeev Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Mohd. Aslam,J.
Heard Sri Sanjeev Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as Sri Jayant Singh Tomar, learned A.G.A. for the State on the point of admission and perused the record.
The instant criminal revision has been filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. against the impugned judgment and order dated 29.07.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.6, Barabanki in Sessions Trial No. 956 of 2010 (State vs. Bhagauti and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 411 of 2009, under Sections 336, 323, 504, 506, 304 I.P.C., Police Station- Badosarai, District- Barabanki, whereby the accusedopposite party nos. 2 to 6 have been acquitted from the charges framed against them.
The procedure for hearing the appeal is to be followed in the hearing of revision. As an appeal could not be decided without hearing the appellant where the appellant is an accused, so the revision preferred by accused-respondent cannot be decided without hearing of accused-revisionist. Rest revision can be decided in absence of revisionist.
The instant revision has been filed on the ground that learned lower court has mistaken and ignored the material evidence produced by the prosecution and has not considered the statement of PW-1 who has supported the prosecution case. It is further submitted that opposite party nos. 2 to 6 were aggressor who had intentionally attacked on the revisionist and his father (deceased). The impugned order is perverse and illegal as no explanation regarding the injury sustained by the deceased was given by the accused persons. The impugned order of acquittal has been passed without application of judicial mind and is against the material facts available on record and lower court has wrongly ignored the evidence of prosecution witnesses on the ground that they are relatives of the deceased. It is further submitted that learned trial court has not used single word in the judgment that the investigating officer has not taken the viscera report. The prosecution has proved its case against opposite party nos. 2 to 6 beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the
impugned judgement and order dated 29.07.2017 is liable to be set-aside.
Learned A.G.A., on the other hand, has opposed the instant revision and submitted that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal recorded by the court below is not perverse and is based on evidence available on record. Therefore, no interference is warrant in the impugned judgment and order and the instant revision is liable to be dismissed.
Perusal of the record shows that learned lower court has discussed the evidence and law in detail and the acquittal of opposite parties is not based on inadmissible evidence.
It is settled principle of law as held by Hon'ble the Supreme court in the case of K. Prakashan Vs. P.K. Surenderan, (2008) 1 SCC 258 "When two views are possible, appellate Court should not reverse the Judgment of acquittal merely because the other view was possible. When Judgment of trial Court was neither perverse, nor suffered from any legal infirmity or non consideration/misappropriation of evidence on record, reversal thereof by High Court was not justified;".
Upon hearing learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perusal of record, I find that there is no manifest error of law or perversity in the findings of acquittal of opposite party nos.2 & 6 and there is no sufficient ground for setting aside the findings of acquittal and substituting the same with that of conviction.
In view of the discussions made above, I have come to the conclusion that the revisionist has failed to show any illegality, irregularity, impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned order and there is no sufficient ground for interfering with or for setting aside the impugned order. The revision has got no force and is liable to be dismissed.
The present revision is dismissed at the admission stage.
Order Date :- 25.11.2022 Vikas/-
Digitally signed by VIKAS VERMA Date: 2022.12.01 18:21:49 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the acquittal of opposite party nos. 2 to 6 warrants interference in the criminal revision.
Whether the lower court erred in ignoring material prosecution evidence in the impugned judgment.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
K. Prakashan Vs. P.K. SurenderanExplained¶12
K. Prakashan Vs. P.K. Surenderan, (2008) 1 SCC 258 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ram Naresh
State Of U.P.
Mohd. Aslam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
