Sharda Bux Singh vs State Of U.P. And 2 Ors.
2022 Latest Caselaw 10445 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 10
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 113 of 2004
 

 
Revisionist :- Sharda Bux Singh
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors.
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- S.H.Ibrahim
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate,I.P.Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

1. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the revisionist to press this revision even in revised call though the case is listed peremptorily today. However, Sri Rao Narendra Singh, learned AGA is present.

2. The present revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgement and order dated 22.1.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, E.C. Act, Court No.9, Sultanpur in Session Trial No.288 of 2002, whereby the learned trial court had acquitted opposite party nos.2 and 3 of the offence under Section 302/34 IPC.

3. As per the prosecution story, deceased, Prakashini was married to Raj Kishre Singh. The marriage took place eight years before the date of incident. Three years before the date of incident, husband of the deceased had died. It is alleged that on the date of incident, the accused-respondents and other accused named in the FIR given beating to the deceased and administered forcibly poison to her, as a result thereof, she died. However, in the VISCERA examination of the deceased, no poison was found. There were some minor injuries on the body of the deceased. The deceased was taken to the hospital by the accused themselves and they tried to save her.

4. Evidence of Parul, daughter of the deceased, was not found to be credible. According to the doctor, who conducted the post-mortem report, the deceased died because of her Spleen got bursted due to injuries caused on her stomach. The trial court, therefore, found the prosecution story set up that she was beaten up and given forcibly poison, not credible and, therefore, the trial court had acquitted the accused-respondents for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC.

5. The incident took place on 7.6.2001. 21 years have gone bye since the date of incident. At this distant point of time, a direction for re-trial would not be appropriate. This Court finds that there is no error of law or jurisdiction, which has been committed by the learned trial court in appreciating the evidence, which warrants this Court to interfere with the impugned judgment and order dated 22.1.2004 passed by the trial court.

6. Thus, the present revision fails, which is hereby dismissed.

Order Date :- 17.8.2022

Rao/-