Dismissed

Roop Narayan v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC10 Nov 2022CRLRD/6/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an old criminal revision challenging an order of acquittal. The Court held that revision jurisdiction is limited to correcting gross miscarriage of justice and refused to substitute findings of fact where two views were possible, finding the trial Court's decision based on evidence was not illegal or perverse.

What did the court decide?

Revision dismissed; the impugned acquittal order stands maintained.

Roop Narayan Vs State of U.P. and Others — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 87

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 6 of 2003

¶3

Revisionist :- Roop Narayan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Revisionist :- M.M. Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

¶4

Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶5

List revised. None appears for the revisionist to press this revision.

¶6

The matter is very old one, which is pending since 2003. With the assistance of learned A.G.A. I have through the pleadings, grounds as also reliefs sought by the revisionist.

¶7

This criminal revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 30.9.2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Azamgarh in Criminal Appeal No. 47 of 1999 (Kalpnath Singh and others Vs. State of U.P.), arising out of judgement and order dated 26.11.1999 passed by learned Ist Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Magistrate in Criminal Case No. 31 of 1999 (Kalpnath Singh and others) by which learned Appellate Court has wrongly and illegally acquitted the opposite party nos. 2 to 4.

¶8

It has been averred in the instant revision that the trail Court has erred in disbelieving the testimony of the witnesses. He has further argued that whole approach of the trial Court, acquitting the accused-opposite party nos. 2 to 4 is incorrect. The impugned judgment and order suffers from gross illegality, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice and, therefore, this Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397/401 CrPC, should set-aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial Court, and remit the matter back to the trial Court for trial afresh.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that the trial Court has correctly analyzed the evidence, and has come to correct conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. He has further submitted that the impugned judgment and order has been passed by the trial Court after analyzing the evidence in detail, which is not liable to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397/401 CrPC. He has further submitted that the view taken by the trial Court is not an impossible view and, therefore, this Court should not interfere with the order of acquittal, and he has prayed for dismissal of the revision.

¶10

I have considered the pleadings made in the present revision, submissions advanced by the learned Additional Government

¶11

Advocate, representing respondent-State, including the evidence led by the prosecution in support of its case.

¶12

The revision jurisdiction of the High Court as contemplated under Section 401 of Cr.P.C. operates within narrow limits and can be exercised only in exceptional cases where interests of public justice require interference for the correction of gross miscarriage of justice. It cannot be exercised because the lower court has taken a wrong view of the law or mis-appreciated evidence on record. The revision power of the High Court is to be exercised when there is manifest error of law or glaring defect in the procedure.

¶13

In the instant case close scrutiny of evidence reveals that on the basis of evidence, learned trial Court has rendered that the prosecution version was not established. Considering entire evidence, it cannot be said that findings rendered by learned trial Court are perverse or suffers from any illegality or error of jurisdiction. It is well settled that the revision Court generally would not re-appreciate evidence and would not substitute findings of fact unless the findings of Court below is not based on evidence or suffers from perversity or illegality. It is also well settled that if on the basis of evidence two views are possible, the view favourable to accused persons has to be taken. In the instant case, considering entire evidence it cannot be said that impugned judgment and order suffers from any such illegality, perversity or error of jurisdiction so as to warrant any interference by this Court.

¶14

The present revision lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.

¶15

Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the concerned Court below.

¶16

Order Date :- 10.11.2022 SA

¶17

Digitally signed by SALMAN ALI Date: 2022.11.16 10:18:20 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Roop Narayan v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Roop Narayan v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vishal Vs State of U.P and Another

Pravesh Kumar Bhardwaj @ Ranu Pandit Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anddyant (Minor) Vs Shruti Rathaur and Another

Mahaveer Singh Kashyap and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashish @ Biba Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sajid and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another