Court No. - 24
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 241 of 1992 Revisionist :- Virendra Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- B. Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.,M.C. Joshi
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
None is present to press this Revision.
The initial order dated 17.02.1992 shows that notice were directed to be issued to the O.P. Nos. 2 to 4 (accused who have been acquitted) although the Revision was not admitted. The O.Ps. are represented by Sri M.C. Joshi but even he is not present.
Since this Revision is very old and it appears from the perusal of the order-sheet that revisionist is not appearing since long, it is being disposed of on merits. The judgement and order dated 23.09.1991 passed by IIIrd Additional C.J.M., Moradabad has been assailed by filing this Revision whereby the O.P. Nos. 2 to 4 have been acquitted of charges under Sections 323, 325 and 504 I.P.C. in Criminal Case No. 441 of 1986, State Vs. Babu Singh and others, P.S. Moongha Pandey.
In grounds of revision, it is stated that the trial court has misread the evidence and erroneously acquitted the accused O.P.s.
I have gone through impugned.
As per prosecution case, the occurrence took place on 26.02.1986 at 9:00 a.m. and it is alleged Pem Masi Harijan of the village of the informant, Virendra Singh was taken by Lekhpal Badam Singh for vasectomy operation at that very moment, accused persons came there and objected to it and when informant told the accused that they should mind their own business, the accused had beaten the informant by 'lathi' by which he received injury in his thumb and thereafter he was also beaten by kicks and fists and was abused also. The medical examination was done of the informant in which doctor (P.W.4) M.P. Gupta had found one contusion on index finger with little swelling and two abrasions near eye and upon face of the injured and Dr. R.K. Gupta (P.W.4) who is radiologist had found fracture in the index finger. In order to prove its case from the side of prosecution, Virendra Singh, informant was examined as P.W.1, Kunwar Pal Singh as P.W.2, Dr. M.P.
Gupta, P.W.3, R.K. Gupta as P.W.4 and, thereafter evidence of prosecution was closed and the statement of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they took the plea of false implication. P.W.1 has supported the prosecution case by stating that accused, Babu Singh has assaulted him by 'lathi' and, thereafter other accused had beaten him with fists and the kicks in which he received above-mentioned injuries. The said version has been supported by P.W.2, Kunwar Pal Singh who is stated to be present on the spot and has stated that he has seen the occurrence when accused had beaten the injured by which he has received the above injuries but the trial court has recorded in the judgement after having considered the entire evidence that at the time of occurrence, many other witnesses (10-12) had also reached at the place of occurrence but none of them has been produced from the side of prosecution who could be independent witnesses to support the occurrence and only P.W.2, Kunwar Pal Singh has been examined who is interested witness because he was always accompanying the informant as a witness and thus has disbelieved the prosecution evidence and has acquitted the accused O.Ps.
It is true that there were three injuries found on person of the injured but all these injuries did not appear to be very serious as two were only abrasions and one was found to be fracture of thumb and the trial court has disbelieved the testimony of the injured as well as the eye-witness on the ground that the said witness, P.W.2 was interested witness while informant did not examine independent witnesses though there were 10-12 other persons who are stated to have reached the place of occurrence, who have witnessed the occurrence, thus, benefit of doubt has been given by the trial trial. The said view of the trial court appears to be a possible view, therefore, I am of the opinion that this judgement does not require to be interfered with in Revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, this Revision is dismissed on merits.
Let the file of this case be consigned to record of this Court.
Order Date :- 26.4.2019 A. Mandhani