In this criminal revision, the High Court dismissed the appeal against the dismissal of a criminal complaint due to contradictions in the dates of the alleged incident and witness testimony, confirming the lower court's decision that there was no sufficient ground to summon the accused.
Reduction of the impugned order of the learned lower court.
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. - 341 of 2009
Revisionist :- Ram Das Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- Gyanendra Pathak,Onkar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mohd. Aslam,J.
None present for the revisionist. Sri Hari Shankar Maurya, learned A.G.A. for the State is present.
The instant revision has been preferred on behalf of the complainant/revisionist against the order dated 22.6.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Purva, District Unnao in Criminal Case No.1571 of 2008 (Ram Das Vs. Jade Ram), under Sections 436/506 I.P.C., P.S. Maurawan, Unnao, whereby the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. was dismissed by observing that there are contradictions in the statements of the complainant and the witnesses and as such there is no sufficient ground for proceeding further to summon the accused.
The personal appearance of the opposite party no.2 was dispensed with by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 31.7.2009.
The brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision is that the complainant filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Purva, Unnao alleging therein that there was enmity between complainant and opposite party no.2 Jade Ram regarding path (way). On 4.5.2006, at about 11:00 p.m., the opposite party no.2 Jade Ram entered into the house of complainant with intention to kill complainant and his family members and has committed mischief by ablazing Thatch on fire, due to which the goods having two doors, two beds and blanket etc. burnt to ashes. The complainant suffered a loss of Rs.10,000/-. The wife of complainant had seen Jade Ram ablazing Thatch on fire and raised alarm, then the villagers Maiku and Sunder Lal also seen Jade Ram fleeing from the spot.
Learned lower court has recorded the statements of complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the witnesses Sarju Devi and Ram Sevak and Ramesh and by observing that the complainantrevisionist has earlier moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 29.5.2006, which was allowed by the Court and a first information report was lodged. After investigation, the Investigating Officer has submitted final report, against
which, the complainant-revisionist has preferred protest petition, which was allowed was registered as complaint case. In protest petition, the complainant-revisionist has stated that incident has taken place on 4.5.2006 at 11:00 p.m., while in statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. he has stated that the incident has taken place on 4.5.2004 and at that time he was not present at the place of occurrence and he has not seen anybody ablazing his Thatch on fire. Witness Sarju Devi has stated in her statement recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. on 22.1.2009 that the occurrence has taken place three years ago. Witness Ram Sevak in his statement recorded on 20.4.2009 has stated that the occurrence has taken place three years ago and the witness Ramesh has stated in his statement recorded on 20.4.2009 that the incident has taken place three years ago.
In above circumstances, learned lower court has found contradictions in the date of occurrence. From perusal of the impugned order and material available on record, it appears that the complainant-revisionist in his statement has stated that the occurrence has taken place on 4.5.2004 at 11:00 p.m., while the witnesses have stated that the occurrence has taken place in the year 2006. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, learned lower found that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding further to summon the accused.
I have gone through the record and perused the impugned order of the learned lower court as well as evidence available on record. Learned lower court has held that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding further to summon the accused, which is according to law and are justified, requires no interference.
The instant revision lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed . Consequently, the impugned order of learned lower court is hereby confirmed.
Order Date :- 14.12.2022 Anil K. Sharma
Digitally signed by ANIL KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2022.12.16 14:26:47 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the lower court's finding that contradictions in evidence precluded summoning the accused warrants interference.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Ram Das
State of U.P.
Jade Ram
Mohd. Aslam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
