Allahabad High Court
Ram Nath Tiwari vs State Of U.P.& 6 Ors. on 8 August, 2018
Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?A.F.R.
Court No. - 29
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 93 of 2005
Revisionist :- Ram Nath Tiwari
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.& 6 Ors.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Amitabh Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate,Mahendra Pratap Singh,Shailendra Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
List revised.
No one appeared on behalf of the revisionist nor any adjournment slip has been given.
The order sheet reveals that on 28.8.2017 this Court was pleased to pass an order that this case shall not be adjourned on the next date since the request was made on behalf of learned Counsel for the revisionist. This case was again listed on 8.11.2017. On said date again no one appeared on behalf of the revisionist and on the said date, this Court was pleased to list this case for another date directing that on the next date the aforesaid case shall be decided on merits. It was again listed on 17.3.2018 and 23.3.2018 but again no one appeared on behalf of the revisionist.
The aforesaid fact makes it abundantly clear that the learned Counsel for the revisionist is no more interested in this criminal revision. Therefore, this revision is being heard on the basis of record and on the basis of assistance being given by learned A.G.A. and learned Counsel for opposite party namely Sri Mahendra Pratap Singh.
By means of this criminal revision, the judgment and order dated 18.1.2005 passed by the learned trial court i.e. Fast Tract Court/ Additional Sessions Judge-1 Raibareli in S.T. No.-87/92 in Crime No.-114/91 under Sections 147/148/149/302/120B, Police Station Unchahar district Raibareli, has been challenged whereby the learned trial court was pleased to acquit the accused persons from the offences charged under aforesaid sections.
On account of prosecution story narrated in the FIR the accused persons namely Suresh Chandra Tewari was murdered on 6.11.1991 by the accused persons namely Rakesh alias Rajesh Kumar, Uma Shanker, Mata Prasad, Raj Kumar, Tribhuvan Prasad Pandey, Ram Sanjeevan Pandey and Girja Shanker , who were having deadly armed weapons with them. It has also been alleged in the FIR that all the accused persons assaulted having common object to murder the victim i.e. Suresh Chandra Tewari. The aforesaid incidence was lodged bearing Crime No.-114/91 under Sections 147/148/149/302/120B, Police Station Unchahar district Raibareli. After the investigation being completed, the charge-sheet was filed before the court concerned. The accused persons denied the allegations so levelled against them and demanded trial in the matter. Therefore, the Sessions Trial No.-87/92 was started.
It has been stated at the Bar that out of those accused persons, Rakesh alias Rajesh Kumar, Tribhuvan Prasad Pandey alias Munshi and Girja Shanker son of Sri Dev Nath Mishra, have died. It is also noted that Rakesh alias Rajesh Kumar was not made party in the present criminal revision and this revision has already been abated against Tribhuvan Prasad alias Munshi and Girja Shanker on 1.8.2017. The learned trial court concluded the trial vide judgment and order dated 18.1.2005 strictly in accordance with law by appreciating all prosecution witnesses and defence witnesses, material on record and evidence and afforded an opportunity of cross examination etc. The learned trial court has taken a note that no independent witness was examined in this matter and the main allegation has been levelled against Rakesh alias Rajesh Kumar and Tribhuvan Prasad Pandey but no specific role has been assigned against the accused persons including Tribhuvan Prasad Pandey, therefore all the accused persons were given benefit of doubt and thereby they were acquitted.
If it is presumed for the arguments sake that the main culprit in this matter was Rakesh alias Rajesh Kumar and Tribhuvan Prasad Pandey alias Munshi, those persons have already died. Further, no specific role has been assigned against any other accused persons and no independent witness was there to collaborate the case of the prosecution.
It is settled preposition of law that if the guilt is not proved against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt, the benefit of doubt would be extended to the defence not to the prosecution. The rational behind this principle of criminal law is that no innocent person should be held guilty unless the guilt is proved beyond all reasonable doubt and if it appears that there is a suspicion in the prosecution story and the prosecution story is not a fool proof story, the benefit shall be given to the accused persons only.
I have perused the order dated 18.1.2005 passed by the learned trial court whereby the accused persons were acquitted by the court concerned getting the benefit of doubt. I find that there is no infirmity or illegality in the order of acquittal dated 18.1.2005 passed by the learned trial court concerned, therefore, no order can be passed in this revision.
It is settled preposition of law, if any revision is filed against any acquittal order, there must be cogent reasons to challenge the order of acquittal in as much as the order of acquittal may not be assailed in a cursory manner.
Therefore, I find no good ground to interfere in the order dated 18.1.2005 passed by the learned trial court.
Accordingly, the instant revision fails and is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 8.8.2018
Jyoti/-
