This single judge judgment dismisses a criminal revision filed by the accused against an acquittal by the Sessions Court. The High Court found no perversity or illegality in the lower court's findings.
The Criminal Revision No. 366 of 2002 is 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.
Court No. - 31
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 366 of 2002
Revisionist :- Ram Bhawan Singh Opposite Party :- Amrendra Bahadur Singh And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- S.H. Ibrahim,Neeraj Sahu Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate,Shishir Pradhan
Hon'ble Mohd. Aslam,J.
List revised. No one present for the revisionist.
Heard Sri Harsh Singh holding brief of Sri Shishir Pradhan, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 & 3 as well as Sri Jayant Singh Tomar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The instant criminal revision has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 11.04.2002 passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Rai Bareli in Sessions Trial No. 61 of 1999 (State vs. Amrendra Bahadur Singh and Another), under Section 302/34 I.P.C., Police Station- Sareni, District- Rai Bareli, whereby the accused-opposite parties 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 not appreciated the evidence in right perspective.
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 opposite parties 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.1 & 2 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 revision is dismissed .
Interim order, if any, stands discharged.
Let the lower Court record be transmitted back to Court below, along with a copy of this order.
Order Date :- 24.11.2022 Vikas/-
Digitally signed by VIKAS VERMA Date: 2022.12.01 18:22:28 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the criminal revision should be allowed to set aside the acquittal of the accused-opposite parties.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
K. Prakashan Vs. P.K. SurenderanReferred¶11
K. Prakashan Vs. P.K. Surenderan, (2008) 1 SCC 258 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ram Bhawan Singh
Amrendra Bahadur Singh
Mohd. Aslam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
