This brief order dismissed the criminal revisional legal proceeding. The High Court held that no interference was warranted as the lower court appropriately acquitted the respondent after examining prosecution witnesses without necessitating a split-up record under Section 235 Cr.P.C.
Appeal dismissed; leave to appeal not granted.
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.
CRLLP NO.89 OF 2016
Due to the pandemic situation for COVID19, this matter is taken up through Video Conferencing mode.
Heard.
The Opposite Party/Respondent has been acquitted of the charges under Sections- 376/ 493/ 294/506/34 IPC under Section 235 Cr. P.C., as there was no evidence on record.
Mr. J. Katikia, learned Additional Govt. Advocate submits that, on the basis of the evidence in a split up record, the present trial has been disposed of without recording any evidence.
On perusal of the impugned judgment, we do not find any material to show that the learned Assistant Sessions Judge has relied on the evidence of any split up record, rather after examining four Prosecution Witnesses, when no material was found, acquittal has been recorded under Section 235 Cr. P.C.
We do not find any reason to interfere. Hence, we are not inclined to grant leave
to appeal.
The CRLLP is accordingly dismissed.
………………………….
C.R. Dash, J.
…………………………. Savitri Ratho, J.
Subha
Subha
2 issues framed by the court
Whether leave to appeal should be granted against the acquittal of the respondent under Section 235 Cr.P.C.
Whether any error was committed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge in recording acquittal based on examination of prosecution witnesses without split-up record.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Appellant
Opposite Party/Respondent
C. R. Dash
Subha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
