Court No. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 455 of 1997 Revisionist :- Ram Ratan Opposite Party :- Sewa Ram And Others Counsel for Revisionist :- G.S. Hajela,Vindesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Satya Prakash Pandey,Ved Prakash Pandey
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Heard Sri Vindesh Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Ved Prakash Pandey, learned Advocate for the opposite party and perused the record.
The present revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 16.1.1997 passed in Sessions Trial No.355 of 1993 by Special/Additional Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur acquitting the opposite party in Case Crime No.195 of 1993 under Section 302/34 I.P.C, P.S- Kant, District-Shahjahanpur.
The contention of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the Sessions Judge had erroneously appreciated the evidence to doubt the place of occurrence and the time of incident for the sole reason that the Investigation Officer had stated in Exhibit- Ka-10 that blood stain and plain earth was collected from the place of incident, whereas the doctor, P.W.-6 stated that no blood was oozed out from the body of the deceased. Further, the court below had wrongly held that the accused were implicated falsely on account of some old enmity. The First Information Report was lodged in time and it has erred in discarding the evidence of eye-witnesses whose presence on the spot of crime could not have been doubted.
Learned A.G.A, in order to assist the Court argued that the prosecution evidence was consistent and eye witness account was illegally discarded by the court below.
Learned counsel for the opposite party had defended findings recorded in the order impugned.
Having considered the said submissions, noticeable is the fact that the revisionist is the first informant of the report and the brother of the deceased. He admitted that some altercation took place in the previous night of the incident about 10.00 p.m. According to the version of eye witnesses, four persons (accused) were armed with lathi and had beaten the deceased, who fell down having sustained serious injuries. P.W.-1 Siyaram, brother of the deceased though was present on the spot but had not sustained a single injury. There was inconsistency in the medical and occular evidences and noticeable lapses in the investigation which indicate that the prosecution story was concocted. Both the prosecution witnesses of fact (P.W.-1 and P.W.-2) were found to be interested witnesses being closely related to the deceased and in view of material inconsistency in their statements, their evidence was found uncreditworthy.
In the light of the findings returned by the court below, this Court is of the considered view that there is no material illegality or procedural impropriety in appreciation of evidence while returning the findings of acquital of the accused persons.
In exercise of revisional jurisdiction, it is not possible for the Court to re-appreciate evidence so as to take a different view of the matter.
The present revision is found devoid of merit and hence dismissed.
Certify the judgment to the lower court immediately.
Order Date :- 27.11.2019 Harshita