Allahabad High Court
Smt. Anarkali vs State Of U.P. on 7 May, 2022
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 12
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 599 of 2008
Revisionist :- Smt. Anarkali
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Girdhari Lal Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Karunakar Srivastava
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
1. Notice was issued on 11th November, 2008, however, till date revision has not been admitted.
On 21.04.2022, when this revision was listed, learned counsel for the revisionist had sought adjournment on the ground of his ill-health and, therefore, the case was directed to be listed in next cause list peremptorily. Again, no one appeared on behalf of the revisionist on 29.04.2022 and, thus, the case was directed to be listed in next cause list peremptorily and, therefore, the matter is listed today as such.
2. List is being revised. None appears, either for revisionist or for private respondents, though Mr. Vipul Gupta, learned Additional Government Advocate is present for respondent-State. With assistance of the learned Additional Government Advocate, the Court is proceeding to decide the matter even in absence of learned counsel for the revisionist and private respondents.
3. This criminal revision, under Section 397/401 CrPC, has been filed against the judgment and order dated 31.07.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C. No. 3, Gonda, in Sessions Trial No.0279 of 2007, arising out of Crime/FIR No.0219 of 2005, under Sections 302/149 and 120-B IPC lodged at Police Station Manakapur, District Gonda.
4. By means of the judgment and order in question, the learned trial Court, after considering the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, found that four prosecution witnesses i.e. PW-3, PW-6, PW-7 and PW-10 had accepted that they did not hear anything in the cycle shop of Ram Autar that accused Shivshanker, Ashok Kumar, Ram Prasad, Prahlad Chaubey and Shyamhari were talking about committing murder of Madan Mohan. They had also accepted that they did not even witness any such incident. Thus, the trial Court, after considering this evidence, was of the view that the prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution case regarding their entering into criminal conspiracy for committing murder of deceased, Madanmohan and, therefore, the offence against them under Section 120-B IPC was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Even the material evidence (Exhibits Ka-1 to Ka-19) also would not prove the offence of criminal conspiracy against the accused-respondents for committing the murder of deceased, Madanmohan. In view thereof, the learned trial Court acquitted the respondents, Shivshanker Shukla alias Birjesh alias Anand alias Gheen, Ashok Kumar Mishra, Ram Prasad, Prahlad Chaubey, Ram Autar and Shyam Hari alias Tiwari alias Hari Shyam under Sections 302/149 and 120-B IPC.
5. This Court has considered the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial Court and finds that view of the trial Court is not an impossible view nor the trial Court has committed any error of fact, law or evidence, which requires any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Thus, the revision fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 7.5.2022
MVS/-
