High CourtsSingle Bench(2011) 09 AHC CK 0468

Veerbhan vs State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 27 September 2011

HON’BLE JUDGES
Jayashree Tiwari, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Revision No. 1566 of 2003

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 367 words

Jayashree Tiwari, J.—Case called out in the revised list.

2.

Learned Counsel for the revisionist is not present nor the Learned Counsel for the opposite party is present. Learned A.G.A. is present.

3.

The present criminal revision has been filed against the order of acquittal u/s 324/34 and 504 Indian Penal Code r/w 3(1)(10) SC & ST Act, Police Station Naugava, District J.P. Nagar.

4.

It is contended on behalf of the revisionist that the judgment passed by the trial court is against the evidence on record, because the trial court has wrongly disbelieved the evidence adduced by the prosecution and has overvalued the evidence adduced by the opposite party and that the witnesses produced by prosecution were natural witnesses.

5.

In this connection, I have gone through the judgment and order passed by the learned lower court. The learned lower court has vividly discussed all the points. The learned lower court has held that the main accused who has been assigned the role of attacking by knife has died. The remaining accused has committed no overt act except being present on the spot and the witnesses who have adduced evidence has not seen the incident and their presence on the spot is highly doubtful. There is no evidence on the record to show that the remaining accused present on the spot has caused any injury by beating the aggrieved person. The learned lower court has also held that abusive language has not been uttered by Nagendra and Uttam and hence came to the conclusion that offence u/s 504 Indian Penal Code is not made out. The injured is ''Jatav'' by caste but no words have been uttered by accused Nagendra and Uttam reflecting humiliation of the caste and offence u/s 3(1)(1)) SC & ST Act too is not made out.

6.

A bare perusal of the judgment and order passed by the learned lower court reflects that the view taken by the learned lower court is a possible view and the findings recorded by it does not seem to be perverse. The revision has, therefore, no force in itself and is liable to be dismissed as such. learned lower court

7.

Accordingly, the revision is dismissed.