Court No. - 55
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2191 of 1999 Revisionist :- Kabool Singh Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- K.K.Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.
None is present on behalf of the revisionist to press this revision in the revised call. Learned A.G.A. is present.
Heard learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
The revision is pertaining to the year 1999 and till date, it is still awaiting admission. The lower court record has already been received.
On 22.11.2019 also, when the revision was listed, no one was present on behalf revisionist to press this revision.
This criminal revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 26.07.1999, passed by Xth Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffar Nagar, in Sessions Trial No. 46 of 1994 (State vs. Virendra), arising out of Case Crime No. 108 of 1992, under Section 306 I.P.C., Police Station Shahpur, District Muzaffar Nagar by which the opposite party no. 2 has been acquitted from the charge under Section 306 I.P.C.
The revision has been filed on the ground that the acquittal has been recorded against the weight of evidence available on record and is illegal. The prosecution case was fully established. The accused has been acquitted for no good reason by the learned trial court. The conclusion arrived at amounts to gross miscarriage of justice. It has been requested that the said judgment be quashed and retrial be directed.
From perusal of the lower court record as well as the impugned judgment, it appears that the learned trial court has found inherent lacunae in the prosecution evidence as the case of the prosecution was for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. and the statement of the witnesses recorded by the prosecution was in respect of the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. The learned trial court also found that the the first information report was ante time and ante dated and about the incident dated 13.05.1992, the first information report was lodged on 15.05.1992, whereas, on evidence it was found that it could not have been lodged prior to 16.05.1992 and for this delay adequate explanation was not given. The learned trial court also found that no evidence was given by the prosecution to establish the charge under Section 306 I.P.C. The evidence of the prosecution witness was in contradiction with the prosecution version as incorporated in the charge sheet. It was also mention in the impugned judgment that the conduct of the accused also indicated that his involvement in the crime was not possible and he regularly remained present during the whole activities conducted by the police. The eye witnesses have not stated that they saw the accused beating the deceased person. The dead body of the deceased was found hanging and the learned trial court has reached to a conclusion that the injuries found on the dead body of the deceased was possible to have come by colliding with the sliding of the staircase. The time of death was also found to be not in consonance with the first information report and in the last, the learned trial court has concluded that the criminal proceeding was initiated because of inimical relationship and there was no evidence on record to show the involvement of the accused in the abetment of suicide and accordingly, the learned trial has acquitted the accused.
Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances and also the fact that there is no one to press this revision, I do not find any material illegality, irregularity, impropriety or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. The revision lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly the revision is dismissed at the admission stage. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
It is, however, made clear that in case, any government appeal is found to have been filed against the aforesaid impugned judgment, the same shall continue and shall be disposed of on merits, in accordance with law and this order will have not affect such government appeal.
Order Date :- 29.11.2019 sailesh