Anil Kumar Son Of Ram Krishna Gupta vs State Of U.P. & Another
2016 Latest Caselaw 6754 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 11
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 638 of 2000
 

 
Revisionist :- Anil Kumar Son Of Ram Krishna Gupta
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Anil Srivastava
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
 
Hon'ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J.

This revision has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 03.02.2000 passed by Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly in Criminal Appeal No. 137 of 1998 - Dharam Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P.

In Criminal Case No. 1222 of 1996 - Sate of U.P. Vs. Dharam Pal Singh under Sections 279/304-A I.P.C, Police Station - Bhuta, District - Bareilly, the Court of 7th A.C.J.M. Bareilly, convicted the accused - Dharam Pal Singh, under Sections 279 and 304-A I.P.C and punished him with imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 3,000/-. Against the said judgement Criminal Appeal No. 137 of 1998 was preferred, which was heard and allowed by the judgement dated 03.02.2002. Against this judgment dated 3.2.2002, the present criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist, which was prosecution witness during the trial.\

In the revised call, none is present to press this revision on behalf of the revisionist.

Heard Sri A.K. Awasthi, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 - accused, learned A.G.A for the State - respondent no. 2 and perused the entire record.

From perusal of the record, it is found that lower appellate court had meticulously appreciated the finding of trial court as well as the evidences adduced before it, and thereafter came to the conclusion that oral evidences of eye witnesses - P.W-2 - Anil Kumar, (who is revisionist also) was not believable, who was also a chance witness. After meticulously appreciating the evidences and circumstantial evidences, the lower appellate court had doubted the testimony of sole eye-witness and gave finding that accused - respondent no. 1 is entitled for benefit of doubt. This finding of lower appellate court is well within the jurisdiction, and apparently not infirm or perverse. This finding is such which may be one of the probable inference on basis of available evidences. Such finding of fact can not be interfered in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

In view of the above, the revision is dismissed.

Order Date :- 02.11.2016.

Vinod.