Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Dhunnu v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1111 of 1985 [2007] RD-AH 8632 (8 May 2007)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court No.11

Criminal Revision No. 1111 of 1985

Dhunnu Vs. State of U.P.


Hon'ble V.D.Chaturvedi, J.

This criminal revision  has been filed against the judgment and order dated 5.6.85 given in criminal appeal No.3 of 1985 whereby the conviction and sentence awarded by the court below was upheld dismissing the appeal. The revisionist was convicted by the trial court for offence u/s 3 Railway Property Act for having in his possession one T. Compling,  material Exhibit 2.

The prosecution examined 3 witnesses in the case, they are P.W.1 Om Prakash ( Head TXR) P.W.2 Sri Tara Singh, A.S.I.. and P.W.3 constable Tulsi Ram Upadhyaya. Thus it is apparent that all the witnesses examined in the case are of the common department. No independent witness was produced.

It is also apparent that the article recovered does not cast much, it is only one T.Compling which is used to join two boogies only one T.Compling was recovered from the applicant . There is nothing in the judgment and order that the revisionist was convicted earlier. In the case where the accused is not earlier convicted, where the accused is convicted for possession of an item,  where the item recovered may be easily planted, where  the item recovered is not much casted and where no public witnesses is produced. The evidence regarding the culpability of the revisionist is bound to frustrate, where there is any doubt regarding the culpability of the accused, the conviction should not be based upon the prosecution evidence.

Keeping in view that all the witnesses examined belongs to a common department; that no public witness was produced; that the recovered item is not a valuable item and can be easily planted.

I am of the view that the accused revisionist is entitled to get the benefit of doubt. The revision is, therefore, allowed. The judgment and order passed in criminal Case No.3128 of 1977 and upheld in criminal appeal No.3 of 1985 are hereby set aside. The revisionist is acquitted. His bail bonds are cancelled. Sureties are discharged. He need not to surrender.




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.