Court No. - 24
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 252 of 1996 Revisionist :- Asha Ram Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Revisionist :- B.R.Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Brij Raj Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist.
None is present from the side of O.P. nos. 2 to 5. Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State is present.
O.P. Nos. 2 to 5 were directed to be sent notices but steps were not taken by the learned counsel for the revisionist.
Since this revision is very old i.e. of the year 1996, it is disposed of on merits in absence of O.P. Nos. 2 to 5.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist that this is actual incident, in-fact the injuries were received by the revisionist-informant which were caused to him by O.P. Nos. 2 to 5, although no medical examination was conducted with regard to those injuries; he although did not suffer any injury of fire arm.
The learned trial court has misread the evidence and has erroneously acquitted the Opposite Party.
As per prosecution case, on 29.08.1990 at about 4:30 p.m., an altercation took place when the informant was trying to clear the rain water from the passage, at that time, the accused Shiv Beer singh came there armed with his father's licensed gun along with Lal Ram, Avnish and Atar Singh, all residents of Tuljapur, P.S. Bhogaon, District Mainpuri and started abusing him and, thereafter Lala Ram, Atar Singh and Avnish exhorted to shoot at the informant whereon Shiv Beer made fire upon the informant, Asha Ram which did not hit him as he ducked it; Shiv Ram tried to refill the cartridge in his gun then informant rushed towards him and caught hold of his gun, thereafter Ram Das, Nirottam Singh, Khushi Ram, Amar Singh etc. came there running and by their help, the informant snatched gun of Shiv Beer in which there was cartridge and, thereafter all the four accused went away from there giving life threat and in the process of snatching the said gun, informant received abrasions on his right cheek.
In order to prove its case from the side of prosecution, Asha Ram as P.W.1, Amar Singh as P.W.2, Ram Das as P.W.3, Khushi Ram as P.W.4 were examined.
After closure of evidence of prosecution, the statement of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they took the plea of false implication.
Record reveals that P.W.2 Atar Singh did not support the prosecution case as he had turned hostile. Rest of the three witnesses i.e. Asha Ram, Ram Das and Khushi Ram were all of the same family and, therefore, after meticulous evaluation of their testimonies, the trial court has discarded their testimonies and looking to the fact that there was enmity between two sides and no injury was found upon the person of the informant, judgement of acquittal has been passed.
I do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgement and, therefore, this Revision deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly dismissed.
Let the file of this case be consigned to record.
Order Date :- 26.4.2019 A. Mandhani