Allahabad High Court
Rama Nand Verma vs State Of U.P. on 27 May, 2022
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 12
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 452 of 2008
Revisionist :- Rama Nand Verma
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Madan Gopal Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,A.K. Pandey,Anil Kumar Pandey,R.K.Tripathi,Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
1. This criminal revision, under Section 397/401 CrPC, arises out of judgment and order dated 12.08.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/FTC, Balrampur in Sessions Trial No.13 of 2007 whereby the learned trial Court convicted accused-Vishnu under Section 307 IPC read with Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act for maximum term of 7 years rigorous imprisonment with fine stipulation, and accused-Rachharam Verma alias Dhiru under Sections 323 and 325 IPC read with Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act for maximum term of 3 years rigorous imprisonment with fine stipulation, however, acquitting him under Section 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.
2. The trial Court, however, acquitted accused, Jagatram and Harinarain under Sections 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act.
3. Mr. Madan Gopal Tripathi, learned counsel for the revisionist, submits that punishment given to Vishnu and Rachharam Verma alias Dhiru is also disproportionate to the offence they committed and, he says their punishment should be enhanced.
4. I have also heard Mr. A.K. Pandey, learned counsel for private respondents, as well as Mr. Ashwani Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A., for the State.
5. The incident took place on 01.08.2006 and trial Court pronounced the judgment and order in question on 12.08.2008. This revision has remained pending 14 years before this Court.
6. Learned counsel, representing the private respondents, submits that respondent, Vishnu is already dead; the trial Court, after considering the evidence in detail and taking into consideration the submissions advanced on behalf of the prosecution as well as defence, did not find sufficient evidence against the accused-respondents, Jagatram and Harinarain and, therefore, acquitted them of the charges levelled against them, whereas the trial Court found evidence against Rachharam and Vishnu and convicted them, as stated above.
7. This Court is conscious of the fact that it is exercising limited jurisdiction of revision conferred under Section 397 read with Section 401 CrPC. This Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence. This Court has to examine whether the trial Court has committed any error of law or jurisdiction while delivering the judgment. The trial Court has considered evidence, which was brought on record by the prosecution and vide the detailed judgment while acquitting two accused, convicted two others.
8. In view thereof, this Court does not find that the trial Court has committed any error of law or jurisdiction while passing the impugned judgment and order. Further out of two accused, who were convicted, one is already dead and, therefore, no purpose would be served by remanding the matter back to the trial Court for appropriate sentence. Finding no substance in the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the revisionist, this revision is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.5.2022
MVS/-
