Alakh Ram Yadav vs State Of U.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 9530 ALL

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 9530 ALL
Judgement Date : 6 August, 2022

Allahabad High Court

Alakh Ram Yadav vs State Of U.P. on 6 August, 2022

Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh




HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 10
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 424 of 2009
 

 
Revisionist :- Alakh Ram Yadav
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Nisar Ahmed
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

1. None appears for the revisionist to prosecute the case even in the revised call. However, Mr. Rao Narendra Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State is present.

2. Present revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 9.8.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/FTC, Shrawasti in Sessions Trial No.8 of 2005 arising out of Case Crime No.275 of 2004 under Sections 147, 366, 149, 376(2)(g) IPC, Police Station Kotwali Bhinga, District Shrawasti.

3. Learned Sessions Court has convicted the accused-Ajay Kumar @ Daddu under Sections 366, 376 IPC and acquitted him of the offecnes under Sections 147, 376 (2)(g) IPC. Accused, Jai Jai Ram and Phoomati have been acquitted of the offences under Sections 147, 366/149, 376 (2)(g) IPC.

4. Present revision has been filed aggrieved by the acquittal of Jai Jai Ram and Phoolmati.

5. This Court has perused the impugned judgment and order as well as record and evidence led during the course of trial. Learned Trial Court on the basis of analysis of evidence brought on record as well as considering the submission of prosecution and defence, has come to the conclusion that prosecution could not prove the offence against Jai Jai Ram and Phoolmati and, therefore, acquitted them of the aforesaid offences.

6. This Court is of the view that impugned judgment and order, so far as acquittal of two accused for offences under Sections 147, 366/149, 376 (2)(g) IPC is concerned, neither it is against the law or jurisdiction nor it is perverse. Therefore, there is no scope of interference by this Court in exercise of its power under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C.

7. This revision is thus, dismissed.

(Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.)

Order Date :- 6.8.2022

prateek