Allahabad High Court
Suman Pandey vs State Of U.P. on 19 September, 2023
Bench: Shamim Ahmed
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:60584
Court No. - 15
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 663 of 2008
Revisionist :- Suman Pandey
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Abdul Rafey Siddiqui,Vineet Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shishir Pradahn
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.
1. List has been revised and the case is being taken up in the revised call of the list.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The instant Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 11.09.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C-II, Faizabad in Sessions Trial No.478 of 2003, awarding lesser punishment to respondents no.2 to 4 while holding them guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 304/34, 308/34, 324/34, 323/34 and 506 I.P.C., Case Crime No.352 A of 2003, Police Station Maharaj Ganj, District Faizabad.
4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the trial court has committed patent error in appreciating the evidence available on record and has awarded less punishment to the respondents while it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that the respondents are guilty of committing the henious offence. It is further submitted that the trial court has given much importance to the minor contradictions emerging in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and has completely disregarded that the evidence of an injured person is at a higher pedestal than evidence of other witnesses but the trial court in complete disregard to the settled law with regard to the appreciation of the testimony of the victim has awarded less punishment to the accused persons on the basis of minor contradictions which have emerged in the evidence of injured.
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. stated that the court below passed the impugned order after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the statements of the revisionist, in such circumstances to meet the ends of justice, the impugned order does not require any interference. There is no illegality, impropriety and incorrectness in the impugned order and also there seems to be no abuse of court's process.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. Counsel for the revisionist has not been able to point out any such illegality or impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned order which may persuade this Court to interfere in the same. In such circumstances to meet the ends of justice, the impugned order does not require any interference. There is no illegality, impropriety and incorrectness in the impugned order and also there seems to be no abuse of court's process.
8. In view of the above, this revision lacks merit and stands dismissed.
9. No order as to costs.
10. Copy of this judgment be sent to the court below for its compliance.
Order Date :- 19.9.2023
Piyush/-
