Allahabad High Court
Ziyaullah vs State Of U.P. & Others on 7 November, 2016
Bench: Pramod Kumar Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AFR
Court No. - 11
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 232 of 2003
Revisionist :- Ziyaullah
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- B.K. Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J.
1. List has has been revised. None present for the revisionist. Heard learned AGA and perused the records.
2. This revision has been preferred against the judgement of acquittal dated 9.12.2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Gorakhpur in S.T. No. 318/2001 (State Vs. Dharmu and others), under section 302 IPC, by which the accused (present O.P. No. 2 to 5) were acquitted of the charge under section 302 IPC.
3. The prosecution case in brief was that FIR of the incident was lodged against the unknown persons by informant Ziyaullah that in the night of incident his brother was murdered by unknown assailants, which was seen by his bhabhi (wife of his deceased brother). After the investigation charge-sheet was submitted against four accused persons (present O.P. no. 2 to 5).
4. The trial court had framed charges, accepted evidences of prosecution side, afforded opportunity of hearing to both sides, and then passed judgment of acquittal of the four charged accused persons by its judgment dated 09.12.2002. Aggrieved by this impugned judgement of trial court, present revision has been preferred by informant of the case.
5. The FIR was lodged against unknown persons regarding incident of night, by younger brother of deceased, on basis of information received from alleged eye witnesses of the incident. No satisfactory explanation was found by trial court as to why the identities of culprits were not revealed by alleged eye witnesses soon after the incident. Finding the prosecution case doubtful, the trial court had acquitted the accused. The court concerned does not appear to have committed any illegality or material irregularity or impropriety in passing the impugned judgment and orders.
6. A perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that trial court had appreciated the facts and evidences of the case and then after being satisfied about the facts relating to case, had passed the judgment of acquittal. From a perusal of the records it appears that conclusions read by learned Sessions Judge are based on available evidences and logical conclusions.
7. It is not an appeal wherein scruitiny of evidence is possible, neither the revisional jurisdiction is open for being exercised simply by reason of the factum of another view being otherwise possible. The impugned orders apparently are presentable, without any such infirmity which may render it completely perverse or unacceptable; and when there is no failure of justice, the interference cannot be had in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
8. In view of the above, this revision is dismissed.
Order Date :- 7.11.2016
SR
