Dismissed¶¶10

Shripati v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC23 Mar 2025C372/535/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court; Criminal Appeal u/s 372 CrPC No. 535 of 2024; Shripati v. State of U.P. and others; appeal against acquittal; S.T. No. 326 of 2013; N.C.R. No. 87 of 2010; Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC; P.S. Devgaon, District Azamgarh; accused Vakil Saroj, Vikram Saroj, Malti Devi acquitted; cross-case S.T. No. 444 of 2010 (State Vs. Shripati); homicidal death of Tilakdhari Saroj; same occurrence; private defence; benefit of doubt from prosecution evidence; no interference; appeal dismissed; Manoj Bajaj, J.; decided 24.3.2025; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:43431.

What did the court decide?

This Court finds no merit in the appeal because the complainant-appellant was himself prosecuted in Sessions Trial No. 444 of 2010 (State Vs. Shripati) for the homicidal death of Tilakdhari Saroj in the same occurrence. ¶¶8

Shripati Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:43431

¶2

Court No. - 77

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL U/S 372 CR.P.C. No. - 535 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Shripati Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Ram Krishna Mishra,Ramesh Chandra Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj,J.

¶6

The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 1.4.2024, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Azamgarh in S.T. No. 326 of 2013 (State vs. Vakeel Saroj and others) arising out of N.C.R. No. 87 of 2010, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. registered at P.S.- Devgaon, District- Azamagarh, whereby the accused-opposite party nos. 2 to 4, Vakil Saroj, Vikram Saroj and Malti Devi have been acquitted.

¶7

Learned counsel for the complainant- appellant, Shripati has argued that on 9.5.2010 at around 11:30 AM, the accused persons, Tilakdhari Saroj, Vakil Saroj, Vikram Saroj and Malti Devi came to the house of the complainant and started abusing and beating them. On raising alarm, the complainant's daughter- Nirmala came there, who was also given beatings and later the victims were rescued by complainant's wife- Maina Devi, one Rajendra as well as other villagers. Learned counsel has argued that the case set up by the complainant was well supported by the witnesses, but the trial court has misread the evidence adduced by the prosecution while acquitting the accused persons. He submits that the trial court has erroneously extended the benefit of doubt to the accused and ignored the testimony of complainant- PW-1 and his daughter, PW-2- Nirmala. According to learned counsel, PW-4- Lalman Yadav, Chief Pharmacist had proved the medico-legal-report of the injured, therefore, the impugned judgment of acquittal is not sustainable and calls for interference.

¶8

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering their submissions, this Court does not find any merit in this appeal as concededly complainant along with others was also prosecuted in Sessions Trial No. 444 of 2010 (State Vs. Shripati) relating to the homicidal death of Tilakdhari Saroj in the same occurrence. The trial court has found that as per the evidence of PW-1, PW-2

¶9

and PW-3, the occurrence between the parties is not disputed which resulted in death of Tilakdhari Saroj. The trial court has further given a specific finding that the accused in S.T. No. 444 of 2010 including complainant- Shripati were the aggressors and in exercise of their private defence, the opposite parties caused simple injuries to the complainant and his daughter- Nirmala. A perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the trial court has carefully examined the prosecution evidence and material on record while extending the benefit of doubt to the accused which emerges from the prosecution evidence itself. Thus, no case is made out for interference.

¶10

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed .

¶11

Order Date :- 24.3.2025 Mohini

¶12

Digitally signed by :- MOHINI RAI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shripati v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shripati v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases