Shiv Murat vs State of U.P. and Others

R.K. Singh, J.—Heard Mr. M.D. Shukla, learned Counsel for the revisionist at length and Mr. A.K. Verma, learned A.G.A.

The argument of Mr. Shukla is that in the impugned judgment and order passed by the IIIrd Addl. Sessions Judge, Jaunpur in Sessions Trial No. 61 of 1988, dated 4.10.94, injuries of the two injured persons who are witnesses for the prosecution in this case have not been properly considered by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Further Mr. Shukla argues that a counter case is also there in which the revisionist has been convicted and the appeal is pending against the judgment of conviction. On this ground he also wants parity and prays that when his clients have been convicted the opposite party in this revision petition should not get acquittal.

After going through the impugned judgment and order this Court does not find any merit in the argument of Mr. Shukla. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge has discussed the injuries on Shiv Murat and Nardeshwar and has discussed the entire evidence of witnesses examined by prosecution and defence at length. The injuries of both the injured persons of the prosecution side in this case have been well considered. There is nothing to justify any adverse comment by the revisionist against the impugned judgment and order. The benefit of doubt given by the Court below against the allegation levelled in this case are not at all perverse to justify any interference in the revisional jurisdiction.

The revision petition does not disclose merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.