Swarup Singh vs State Of U.P. & Others
2012 Latest Caselaw 3154 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?AFR 
 
Court No. - 22
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 139 of 2009
 

 
Petitioner :- Swarup Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
 
Petitioner Counsel :- Kamal Kishor Mishra,Diwakar Singh
 
Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate
 

 
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.

Heard Sri Kamal Kishor Mishra and Sri Diwakar Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the impugned judgment and order.

This revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 20.10.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Court No.2, Bijnore in S.T. No. 44 of 2005 under Sections 364, 302, 34, 201 I.P.C., Police Station Nagina, District Bijnore whereby the accused opposite party nos. 2 to 4 have been acquitted by the trial court.

From a perusal of the judgment of the trial court, it appears that the incident had taken place on 6.4.2004. Missing report was lodged by the informant on 15.4.2004. The dead body of the deceased was recovered on 19.4.2004. The trial court recorded the evidence of P.W. 1 who is the father of the informant in whose presence the deceased was taken away by the accused person but then too he had not lodged a prompt report with the police against the accused hence discarded his testimony. P.W.2 Hori Singh, who is said to have last seen the deceased in the company of the accused persons also did not inspire confidence with the trial court. The evidence of P.W.5 Dr. A.K. Chaturvedi, who conducted the postmortem of the deceased on 20.4.2004 has stated that the death had occurred two weeks prior to the postmortem and it was difficult to identify the dead body. The trial court further found that there is nothing in the evidence of P.W.1 as to how he identified the dead body of the deceased Nipendra. It could not be ascertained during trial by the evidence that the dead body found was of the deceased Nipendra. The evidence is of circumstantial in nature and the chain of circumstances is not complete so as to bring the guilt of the accused.

In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality and the view taken by the trial court was a probable view. No interference is called for by this Court in the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court.

The revision lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.

Order Date :- 23.7.2012

Shiraz