Dismissed

Kapil Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Allahabad HC9 Aug 2024/920/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses two criminal revisions filed by accused persons challenging the rejection of their discharge applications. The High Court held that since the trial has not commenced and strong suspicion exists, there is no ground for interference with the trial court's order.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revisions are dismissed with the observation that no occasion exists for interference as the trial is yet to commence and strong suspicion persists.

Kapil Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:54899

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

1. Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 920 of 2024

¶4

Revisionist :- Kapil Yadav

¶5

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Riyaz Ahmad,Hemant Kumar Pandey,Osama Syed Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

2. Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 921 of 2024

¶7

Revisionist :- Ramesh Kashyap

¶8

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Riyaz Ahmad,Hemant Kumar Pandey,Osama Syed Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶9

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶10

1. Heard Shri Riyaz Ahmad, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and Shri Nadeem Murtaza along with Shri Bhupendra Singh Bhist, learned counsel for opposite party No.2.

¶11

2 . Vakalatnama filed by Shri Nadeem Murtaza, on behalf of the respondent No.2 is taken on record.

¶12

3. Instant revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C.-438/442 B.N.S.S., 2023 against the order dated 25.07.2024 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.20, Lucknow in Sessions Trial No.834 of 2024.

¶13

4. As learned counsel for the revisionist states that both the revisions arise out of common facts and common judgment, as such they are being decided together. For convenience, the facts of Criminal Revision No.920 of 2024 are being taken up.

¶14

5. Contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the FIR was lodged on 08.09.2023 at 22:37 Hours by one Kundan Singh Yadav against three named accused and two unknown persons. The revisionist was not named in the said FIR.

¶15

6. Subsequently, it is contended that as one of the named accused namely Sumit Yadav had been arrested by the police yet he had also named the revisionist with the result that the revisionist also came to be arrested. When the complainant and another person reached the

¶16

police station, he identified the revisionist as one of the two unnamed persons, who had been indicated in the FIR.

¶17

7. On the basis of the same, the charge-sheet dated 05.12.2023, a copy of which is Annexure-10 to the petition, was submitted against various accused including the revisionist herein.

¶18

8. The revisionist filed an application for discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. which has been rejected vide the order impugned dated 25.07.2024, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition.

¶19

9. Being aggrieved, the instant petition has been filed.

¶20

10. Sole argument of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that as the complainant and one of the victims have identified the revisionist at the police station consequently the same could not have been considered by the police while submitting its charge-sheet which vitiates the very basis on which the charge-sheet had been submitted and as on the said basis the revisionist has been called to face trial it would run against the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh vs State of Karnataka passed in Criminal Appeal No.629 of 2005 , decided on 27.07.2009.

¶21

11. Placing reliance on the aforesaid judgment, the argument is that in the said judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that where no identification parade has been held and the person concerned had been identified after the police had called the complainant to the police station consequently the said conviction would be vitiated.

¶22

12. Placing reliance on the aforesaid judgment in the case of Ramesh (supra) , the argument is that once the trial itself has been held to be vitiated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh (supra) consequently the revisionist being named in the charge-sheet and thereafter the trial proceeding against him on that basis, is legally impermissible in the eyes of the law. As such on this ground alone, the order dated 25.07.2024 merits to be quashed.

¶23

13. On the other hand, Shri Nadeem Murtaza, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble

¶24

Supreme Court in the cases of Palvinder Singh vs Balvinder Singh (2009) 1 JIC 73 SC and Sajjan Kumar vs C.B.I. : (2010) 9 SCC 375 to contend that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically laid down the law that in case there is a strong suspicion against a person, the trial can always proceed against the said person and thus, there is no infirmity in the order of the learned trial court rejecting the application filed by the revisionist under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. vide order dated 25.07.2024.

¶25

14. So far as the judgment in the case of Ramesh (supra) is concerned, argument of Shri Nadeem Murtaza is that the said judgment pertains to conviction having taken place on account of alleged identification having been carried out in the police station. He contends that in the instant case trial is still to start and as the revisionist has been found to be involved in the matter on the basis of a strong suspicion consequently the said judgment would not come to rescue of the revisionist.

¶26

15. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it emerges that the short controversy as is involved in the instant revisions is the rejection of discharge application filed by the revisionist after he has been named in the charge-sheet, which had been filed by the police.

¶27

16. In the charge-sheet, the revisionist had been named as accused person on the basis of he having been identified at the police station by the complainant and one of the victims. Sheet anchor of the argument of the learned counsel for the revisionist is the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has set aside the conviction of the convict on the ground that identification of the convict is erroneous having been made at the police station.

¶28

17. Admittedly, in the instant case trial is still to commence. The revisionist has been named in the charge-sheet, which has been filed by the police. As per the specific averment made in para 24 of the

¶29

revision, it has been indicated that a false recovery of a country made pistol and 2 live cartridges has been shown by the police against the revisionist.

¶30

18. Considering the aforesaid, it is thus apparent that there is strong suspicion of the involvement of the revisionist in the episode. During the trial it would always open for the revisionist to take the pleas as have been taken by the learned counsel for the revisionist before this Court but once the trial is still to commence and the revisionist has been found to be involved in the matter as such there cannot be any occasion for interference in the order impugned by which the discharge application filed by the revisionist has been rejected.

¶31

19. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the revision is dismissed with the aforesaid observations.

¶32

Order Date :- 9.8.2024 prateek

¶33

Digitally signed by :- PRATEEK ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Kapil Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kapil Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mohit @ Mohit Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Sukhdev Mishra and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Bindra Prasad Dubey @ Bindra Prasad and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Smt. Dashratha Devi and Another vs State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another

Ramesh Kashyap vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Inzmamul Haq and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another