In this criminal revision, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the petition challenging the acquittal of accused persons in a murder case. The court held that the trial court rightly appreciated the evidence and no interference was warranted.
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. - 19
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 205 of 2009
Revisionist :- Devendra Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- D.P. Misra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shitla Prasad Tripathi
Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.
Heard Shri D.P. Misra, learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri Rajiv Verma, learned A.G.A. and gone through the lower court record.
The present criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 18.10.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Faizabad in S.T. No. 217 of 2007 arising out of Case Crime No. 326 of 2007, under Sections 302/34, 201 I.P.C., P.S. Mahrajganj, District Faizabad.
As per the prosecution case, on 4th June, 2007, when Sunil Kumar (deceased) was sleeping on the adjoining cot of his mother in the night, the accused persons came and called him, on which, he went with the accused persons, but he did not come back. On 8th June, 2007, a missing report was lodged in the police station. Thereafter, his body was found near the canal on the same day. Later on, F.I.R. was lodged naming the respondents as accused, which was registered as Case Crime No. 326 of 2007, under Section 302, 201 I.P.C. Inquest as well as post mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted. Site plan was prepared by the Investigating OfÏcer and statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was also recorded. On the basis of the evidence collected during the course of investigation, charge sheet was submitted. Cognizance was taken by the court below and case was committed to the court of Session. Charges were framed. The respondents denied the guilt and requested for trial.
The prosecution placed 7 witnesses before the trial court,
namely, Devendra Kumar (P.W. 1), Smt. Subhadra Devi (P.W. 2), Hansraj (P.W. 3), Dr. S.C. Sinha (P.W. 4), SubInspector, O.P. Singh (P.W. 5), Sub-Inspector, Imtiyaz Ahmad (P.W. 6) and Constable Dashrath Singh (P.W. 7) and also relied on documentary evidence, duly proved by the aforesaid prosecution witnesses.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that P.W. 1 (informant), Devendra Kumar has categorically deposed before the trial court that Sunil Kumar (deceased) and accused-respondent no. 4, Rinki were very close since childhood and later on, some illicit relations were developed in between them. When this was informed to the father of Rinki, namely, Siya Ram, respondent no. 2, he stated that he will convince Rinki. P.W. 1 also stated that that prior to the incident, some dispute was also taken place in between the son of Siya Ram and Sunil Kumar. He further stated that one month prior to the date of incident, marriage of Rinki was solemnized with someone else and she went to her in-laws house. However, later on, when she came to her parental house, she denied to go her matrimonial house. P.W. 1, in his deposition, also stated that on the date of incident, accused Siya Ram called the Sunil (deceased), on which, Sunil told his mother that he will come back very soon, but he did not return. Submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the trial court also ignored the statement of the mother of the deceased (P.W. 2), namely, Subhadra Devi, who also reiterated the story as narrated by P.W. 1. It is, thus, submitted that court below has wrongly appreciated the evidence and acquitted the private respondents vide impugned order dated 18.10.2008 and, therefore, indulgence of this Court is necessary.
Shri Rajiv Verma, learned A.G.A., while opposing the prayer of the revisionist, submits that the trial court has rightly acquitted the accused respondents. He also submits that P.W. 2, Smt. Subhadra Devi, in her deposition, has not mentioned that she informed to her husband about the
incident. It is further submitted that the missing report was lodged on 8th June, 2007, but the facts, as argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist are not mentioned in the missing report. It is also submitted that thereafter, the body of the deceased was found on the same day, i.e., on 08.06.2007 and the F.I.R. was lodged on the basis of developed facts.
Considering the statement of the learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. and going through the lower court record, it is admitted fact by the prosecution that the deceased went with the accused persons on 4th June, 2007 at about 1 a.m. while telling his mother (P.W. 2) that he will come very soon. It is also evident that though he did not come back, but this fact was not reported to the police for three days that he went with the accused persons on 4th June, 2007. Later on, on 8th June, 2007, a missing report was lodged by the informant (P.W. 1) without mentioning the fact that on the call of the accused persons, the deceased went with them on 04.06.2007.
In view of above facts and circumstances, the trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence and acquitted the private respondents vide order dated 18.10.2008 and no interference in required in the same.
The revision is devoid of merit and, accordingly, stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 1.11.2022 VKS
Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.11.04 11:05:46 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
Devendra Kumar
State of U.P.
Rajeev Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
