Bablu vs State Of U.P. And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 8364 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 42
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL U/S 372 CR.P.C. No. - 7599 of 2010
 

 
Appellant :- Bablu
 
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- D.P. Mishra,Vinay Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
 

 
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

List revised. No one is present to press this appeal.

This appeal has been filed against the order dated 23.9.2010 passed by Special Judge S.C./S.T Act, Bulandshahar in Session Trial No. 599 of 1999 (State vs. Dhanesh and others) acquitting the opposite party nos. 2 to 4, under Sections 364, 302/34, 201 IPC and 3(2)V of Prevention of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Sayana, District Bulandshahar.

From perusal of record we find that connected Government Appeal No. 439 of 2011 (State of U.P. vs. Dhanesh and others) arising out of the same impugned judgment and order has already been dismissed vide order dated 3.5.2012 by coordinate Bench of this Court. The aforesaid order dated 3.5.2012 is quoted as under:-

"Heard the learned A.G.A. on the application seeking leave of the court to appeal against the judgment dated 23.09.2010 passed by the learned Special Judge, Bulandshahar in Session Trial No.599 of 1999 by which three respondents were acquitted of the charges under Section 304, 302/34, 201 I.P.C. and 3 (2)V SC/ST Act.

On consideration of the judgment and after hearing the learned counsel, we find that solitary witness P.W.-1 Bablu was disbelieved by the court below on the ground that when he was being taken away by respondent-Naresh, the act could have been seen by many persons as the route was passing through densely populated area, but none was coming to support the case. Not only that, the witnesses who had gone to see the victim during his confinement were also not produced for evidence. Moreover, those witnesses, who had met the victim, were also maintaining a suspicious silence and were not divulging that the victim was confined at a particular place. We find these as the good reasons for acquitting the respondents. In the above view, we refuse to grant leave to appeal and, thus, the appeal is dismissed."

We have considered the grounds taken in the appeal and on perusal of record we find that there is no good ground to take different view of the matter.

Accordingly, present appeal also stands dismissed at the admission stage itself.

Order Date :- 28.7.2022

Lalit Shukla