Court No. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 249 of 1990 Revisionist :- Tilak Ram Opposite Party :- Satya Veer Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Keshav Sahai Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
1- None is present on behalf of the revisionist to prosecute this case even in the revised list/call and the revision is being decided in his absence.
2- Heard learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
3- In compliance of the orders dated 9.10.2014 and 24.8.2018, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar has reported vide its report dated 5.9.2018 that revisionist Tilak Ram died on 3.8.1987. In this regard, statements of S.I. Naresh Kumar, son of deceased Pramod Kumar and brother of deceased Vijay Pal were recorded.
4- It is also pertinent to mention that since revisionist has died hence no possibility of the revisionist to come before this Court.
5- This criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist challenging the order dated 16.11.1989 passed by Munsif Magistrate, Kairana, District Muzaffarnagar in case no.729/9-1987, under Sections 323, 325, 504 I.P.C. whereby opposite party no.1-Satya Veer-accused was acquitted under Sections 323, 325, 504 I.P.C.
6- From perusal of the record, it transpires that the lower court has come to conclusion that the injuries received by the injured allegedly caused by opposite party no.1/accused on 8.8.1983 at 4-00 p.m. as alleged in the F.I.R has not been proved. The statements of Tilak Ram, Lakapat and Kadam Singh were major contradictions about the place of occurrence and injury received by the injured/complainant.
7- From the side of accused/Satya Veer, D.W.1-Hukum Singh and D.W.2-M.Q. Huda (Pharmacist) was examined. The case was not proved according to site- plan beyond reasonable doubt that the incident was taken place as narrated in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and F.I.R., hence place of occurrence was also not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
8- This Court finds no illegality, impropriety, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. No interference is called for. The present revision lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed. Hence dismissed.
9- Stay order, if any, stands vacated.
10- Copy of this order be transmitted to the court concerned to proceed in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 13.9.2018/OP