Allahabad High Court
Shiv Saran vs Chandra Bhan Chaubey on 31 August, 2022
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 10
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 8 of 2009
Revisionist :- Shiv Saran
Opposite Party :- Chandra Bhan Chaubey
Counsel for Revisionist :- Ashutosh Singh,Amitesh Pratap Singh,Pankaj Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- N.K. Pandey
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
1. Heard and gone through the record.
2. By way of this criminal revision under Sections 397/401 CrPC, the revisionist has prayed for quashing of the judgment & order dated 17.10.2008 passed by the learned Special Judge, SCST Act, Gonda in Criminal Case No.211 of 1993, arising out of Crime No.0232 of 1992 lodged at Police Station Wajirganj, District Gonda whereby the learned trial Court has acquitted the accused, Chandrabhan Chaubey, Gauri Shanker Chaubey and Indra Bhan alias Deputy, who are respondents herein, for offences under Sections 308/34, 325/34, 323/34, 504 and 506 IPC read with Sections 3(i)(x) SCST Act.
3. The learned trial Court found that three witnesses, examined by the prosecution, were interested witnesses inasmuch as they all are relatives.It is stated that there are glaring contradictions in the evidence of the said witnesses in respect of the manner in which the incident was caused and place of incident etc. The learned trial Court, after considering the evidence, found that the prosecution could not prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, learned trial Court has acquitted three accused, who are respondents herein.
4. Mr. Amitesh Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist has, however, submitted that there are injured witnesses, who have received injuries; the doctor, who examined the injured/victims, had proved the injury report as Exhibits Ka-4 and Ka-5; in the statement given by the doctor, he has said that the injuries caused to the victims could have been caused by hard & blunt object, however, the injuries were of simple nature. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that when there are injured witnesses, the trial Court should not have brushed-aside the evidence of the prosecution witnesses to hold that the prosecution witnesses were relatives and interested witnesses and, therefore, their evidence could not have been relied on. It is further submitted that the Supreme Court in several judgments has held that the evidence of witness can be brushed-aside only if he is an interested witness. Evidence of injured witness has to be given paramount importance in trial. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment & order passed by the learned trial Court is against the law and liable to be set-aside.
5. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the revisionist, Mr. Amitesh Pratap Singh.
6. The incident took place in the year 1993. Almost 19 years have gone-by since the date of incident. The view taken by the learned trial Court cannot be said to be perverse or impossible one. The learned trial Court has considered the evidence and come to the conclusion that there are glaring contradictions in the statement of witnesses, who are interested witnesses and, therefore, acquitted the three accused. This Court, in exercise of power under Section 397/401 CrPC, does not find that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court is perverse and impossible one. In view thereof, this revision fails, which is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 31.8.2022
MVS/-
