Mohd. Rais vs State Of U.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 2313 ALL

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 2313 ALL
Judgement Date : 7 May, 2022

Allahabad High Court

Mohd. Rais 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. - 467 of 2008
 

 
Revisionist :- Mohd. Rais
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Manoj Kumar Misra
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,G.P. Mishra
 

 
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Ms. Shilpi Singh Bhadauriya, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist, and Mr. Ranvijay Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent-State.

3. This criminal revision, under Section 397/401 CrPC has been filed against the judgment and order dated 18.07.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No.1, Gonda in Sessions Trial No.58 of 2004, arising out of Crime No.015 of 2003 lodged at Police Station Karnailganj, District Gonda.

4. Learned trial Court, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence on record and taking into consideration the submissions made on behalf of the prosecution and the defence held that the prosecution did not examine the alleged eye-witnesses, Jag Prasad and Ali Raja and, they were discharged from giving evidence. The prosecution did not produce eye-witnesses and even the injured witness did not support the prosecution case. The trial Court held that the prosecution was failed to prove the charges under Sections 308/34, 325/34, 323/34 and 504 IPC against the accused-respondents beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, acquitted them.

5. Though Ms. Shilpi Singh Bhadauriya, appearing for the revisionist, has made strong effort to convince the Court to allow the revision, but having considered the scope under Section 397/401 CrPC as well as the judgement of the trial Court, this Court is of the view that the learned trial Court has not committed any error of law, fact or evidence, which requires any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Thus, the revision fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.

Order Date :- 7.5.2022MVS/-