Nazar Ali vs State of Uttaranchal and Others

Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.—None turns up on behalf of the revisionist even in the second time revised call, while on the previous date, adjournment was sought on behalf of the revisionist''s counsel Sri K.S. Verma, but today there is No. representation even in the post lunch hours session. However, Sri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State is present. I have gone through the record of the case and the grounds of revision.

This is the revision preferred by private revisionist-Nazar Ali against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 12.8.2002 whereby all the accused persons named Yunus, Usman, Chunnu @ Mustafa, Smt. Rasulla and Rizwan have been acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar from the charge u/s 302/34, 201/34 r/w Section 120B Indian Penal Code.

I have gone through the judgment and find that one of the lady accused Rasulla was married with the deceased Khurshid. Khurshid''s dead body was found lying in an agricultural field in the vicinity of village Hazara from where the accused persons 1 to 4 hail. This was a case of circumstantial evidence only and No. direct evidence was available. The grounds of revision which I have gone through are very much stereo type which are being taken one by one.

It has not been stated by the revisionist that how the impugned order is against the facts and circumstances of the case. Although this is the settled position of law that in revision the evidence of fact cannot be reappreciated by the revisional court, until there has been an apparent mistake of fact which goes to the root of the case. There is No. mistake of fact pointed out in the grounds of revision.

In ground No. 2 it has not been mentioned as to which material witness has not been called upon by the court for examination. Whatever the I.O. has given the list of witnesses, the District Government Counsel has produced and examined all the relevant ones.

Ground No. 3 is misconceived and has not been correctly drafted. Rather it says that 26 in all the witnesses in the case has been examined. The formal prosecution papers, genuineness has been admitted by the D.G.C., so there was No. need to examine the formal prosecution witnesses.

All the relevant material witnesses in the case have been declared hostile and have not supported the prosecution version so there was No. need to examine the witnesses of recovery, as ground No. 4 of the revision.

Grounds No. 5, 6 and 7 are baseless and unsubstantiated and do not have any force.

In view of the above, I do not find any illegality or irregularity apparent on the fact of record in the judgment of the court below. So this revision is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. It is dismissed accordingly.