In this criminal revision, the High Court refused to enhance the sentence awarded to two convicted accused. The Court held that under Section 397 CrPC it lacked jurisdiction to reappreciate evidence and remanding the case was unnecessary as one convicted accused had already died.
No enhancement of punishment granted; revision 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. - 12
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 452 of 2008
Revisionist :- Rama Nand Verma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- Madan Gopal Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,A.K. Pandey,Anil Kumar Pandey,R.K.Tripathi,Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
therefore, acquitted them of the charges levelled against them, whereas the trial Court found evidence against Rachharam and Vishnu and convicted them, as stated above.
Order Date :- 27.5.2022 MVS/-
Digitally signed by MANOJ VIKRAM SINGH CHAUHAN Date: 2022.05.27 18:46:50 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can enhance the sentence of convicted accused on its own without finding error of law or jurisdiction in the lower court.
Whether the High Court should remand the matter for appropriate sentence when one of the convicted accused is already dead.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Rama Nand Verma
State of U.P.
Dinesh Kumar
Manoj Vikram Singh Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
