In Criminal Revision No. 424 of 2009, the High Court examined the acquittal of two accused persons by the Sessions Court. The Court found no legal error or perversity in the lower court's decision regarding the acquittal and dismissed the revision filed by the aggrieved parties.
The revision against the acquittal of Jai Jai Ram and Phoolmati was 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. - 10
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 424 of 2009
Revisionist :- Alakh Ram Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- Nisar Ahmed Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
1. None appears for the revisionist to prosecute the case even in the revised call. However, Mr. Rao Narendra Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State is present.
2. Present revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 9.8.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/FTC, Shrawasti in Sessions Trial No.8 of 2005 arising out of Case Crime No.275 of 2004 under Sections 147, 366, 149, 376(2)(g) IPC, Police Station Kotwali Bhinga, District Shrawasti.
3. Learned Sessions Court has convicted the accused-Ajay Kumar @ Daddu under Sections 366, 376 IPC and acquitted him of the offecnes under Sections 147, 376 (2)(g) IPC. Accused, Jai Jai Ram and Phoomati have been acquitted of the offences under Sections 147, 366/149, 376 (2)(g) IPC.
4. Present revision has been filed aggrieved by the acquittal of Jai Jai Ram and Phoolmati.
5. This Court has perused the impugned judgment and order as well as record and evidence led during the course of trial. Learned Trial Court on the basis of analysis of evidence brought on record as well as considering the submission of prosecution and defence, has come to the conclusion that prosecution could not prove the offence against Jai Jai Ram and Phoolmati and, therefore, acquitted them of the aforesaid offences.
6. This Court is of the view that impugned judgment and order, so far as acquittal of two accused for offences under Sections 147, 366/149, 376 (2) (g) IPC is concerned, neither it is against the law or jurisdiction nor it is perverse. Therefore, there is no scope of interference by this Court in exercise of its power under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C.
7. This revision is thus, dismissed.
( Dinesh Kumar Singh, J. )
Order Date :- 6.8.2022 prateek
Digitally signed by PRATEEK ARORA Date: 2022.08.06 17:53:50 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Additional Sessions Judge's acquittal of accused Jai Jai Ram and Phoolmati under Sections 147, 366/149, and 376(2)(g) IPC.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Dinesh Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
