Balram vs State Of U.P. & Others
2013 Latest Caselaw 1494 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 25
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 939 of 2008
 

 
Petitioner :- Balram
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
 
Petitioner Counsel :- Kamal Singh Yadav,Ray Sahab Yadav
 
Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate
 

 
Hon'ble Mrs. Jayashree Tiwari,J.

Case called out in the revised list.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A.

The present criminal revision has been filed against the judgment and order of acquittal recorded by the learned trial court under sections 147, 148, 149, 307 I.P.C.

It is contended that the accused revisionist has been acquitted on the ground that an F.I.R. is alleged to have been written by Balram Singh who has been examined as P.W.1 but he was never interrogated and examined under section 161 Cr.P.C. As such, his statement that the first time in court is not to be easily admissible. Unless and until he shows any sufficient cause and that he has taken due steps against the Investigating Officer for not recording his statement.

So far as the contention of remaining witnesses is concerned, learned lower court has observed that there is ambiguity in the statement of remaining witnesses as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and vividly discussed this ambiguity and contradictions at page 14 in para 24 of his order. The evidence given by the P.W.2 is vague and ambiguous. P.W.3 has not given any evidence regarding the unconsciousness of P.W.2.

The learned lower court has held that there are contradictions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses which creates doubt about the genuineness of the prosecution version. The learned lower court has also considered that there is delay of about three hours in lodging of the F.I.R. without satisfactory explanation. Thus the perusal of the judgment shows that cogent and valid reasons have been given by the learned trial court for disbelieving the testimony of the witnesses and have considered the inordinate delay in lodging of the F.I.R. without satisfactorily explanation. At this stage, I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the learned trial court. 

The view taken by the learned trial court is most probable and natural view that can be taken in the matter. No Government Appeal is reported to have been filed against this judgment of acquittal. Under the revisional powers, a judgment of acquittal cannot be converted into one of conviction, when the procedure followed in accordance with law. The revision, therefore, appears to have no force in itself and is liable to be dismissed as such.

The revision is accordingly dismissed.

Order Date :- 30.4.2013

Monika