Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

STATE OF U.P. versus SUBHASH & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


State Of U.P. v. Subhash & Others - GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. 4931 of 2002 [2005] RD-AH 4640 (21 October 2005)

 

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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Hon'ble M.C. Jain, J.

Hon'ble Vinod Prasad, J.

We have heard Sri M.C. Joshi,  A.G.A. and have perused the impugned judgement of acquittal, including the record which has been summoned before us.

One Mohkam Singh was done to death on 11.1.1990 at 4.30 PM. Six persons were named as assailants who were allegedly armed with firearms. Out of them, Megh Singh, Parsadi,  Sushil and Yogendra have died. The State has come up in appeal against the remaining two, namely, Subhash and Indrapal. So far as Indrapal is concerned, PW 1 Amar Singh did not name him as one of the assailants. Rather, he has specifically stated that he was not present at the time of the incident. PW 2 Kripal Singh deposed with regard to the said Indrapal that he named him at the instance of the villagers. There was no other witness. Therefore, there could be no question of conviction of Indrapal.

As regards the other accused respondent Subhash, we have perused the testimony of the above  so-called two eyewitnesses and in our opinion, the trial court has rightly found their testimony to be unbelievable against him. The medical examination was also in conflict  with their testimony, inasmuch as the penis of the deceased had been found to have been eaten up by the cattle which could not be so, had these witnesses been present and witnessed the incident. In totality, therefore, no interference is possible with the acquittal recorded by the trial court which has been done for justifiable reasons.

Leave to file appeal is declined.

Dt:21.10.2005.

Akn-GA4931--02

Hon'ble M.C. Jain, J.

Hon'ble Vinod Prasad, J.

The leave to file appeal having been declined vide order of date passed on the leave application, the appeal is dismissed.

Dt:21.10.2005.

Akn-GA4931--02


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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 |

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