Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BHARAT SINGH AND ANOTHER versus STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Bharat Singh And Another v. State Of U.P. And Another - APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 14674 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 5263 (8 November 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

Court No. 54

Criminal Misc. Application No. 14674 of 2005.

Bharat Singh and another Vs. State of U.P. and another.

Hon. Mrs. Poonam Srivastava, J.

Heard Sri N.S. Chahar and Sri V.P. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A for the State.

This application has been filed for quashing the proceedings in case No. 1089 of 2005, State Vs. Arvind and others, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 I.P.C. Police Station Bhithri Chainpur, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist, Bareilly.

The submission on behalf of the applicants is that a first information report was registered against 11 persons at case crime No. 54 of 1995, under Sections 147, 307 I.P.C.. The charge sheet was submitted against the accused under Sections 147, 307, 323 I.P.C. The trial of the two accused Rakeshwar Singh and Mahar Singh was separated and the proceedings were completed in Sessions Trial No. 480 of 2001, under Sections 307, 149 I.P.C. The two accused have been acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge, Bareilly vide judgment dated 16.8.2002, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the affidavit.

I have perused the judgment. The complainant Om Pal Singh was examined as PW-1. On perusal of the judgment in respect of the two co-accused Rakeshwar Singh and Mahar Singh, it is clear that the complainant has not supported the prosecution case, on the contrary he has stated that he had not seen, who caused the injury on him and there were a number of villagers who had gathered at spot.  He has admitted in his statement that the name of the accused was given in the first information report at the instigation of some villagers. The injured has further denied to have seen any of the accused who had caused the knife injury on his back. The injured himself was declared hostile. The PW-2 Som Pal Singh, brother of PW-1 also did not support the prosecution case and trial ended in an acquittal.

The submission on behalf of the applicants is that the evidence recorded in the said session trial will be same evidence in the case of the present applicants and since once the court has given a verdict of acquittal, the proceedings, if allowed to continue against the present applicants, will only be a futile exercise and no good result can be expected. It is almost certain that the trial of the present applicants if allowed to continue, will only end in an acquittal and there is no even a remote chance of conviction. In the facts and circumstances and on the basis of a decision of this Court in the case of Manoj Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2004 (49) ACC, 302. it is prayed that the principle of ''stare decisive' will squarely apply to the facts of the present case and in view of the aforesaid decision, the charge sheet should be quashed. Another decision cited by learned counsel for the applicant is Smt. Begum and others Vs. State of U.P. and others Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2005 Current Bail Cases, 546.  

After hearing the counsel for the parties and going through the decisions cited above on behalf of the applicants, it is true that there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction against the present applicants and only if, the trial is allowed to continue, it will amount to wastage of valuable time of the court. The trial, if allowed to continue, will only be a hallow formality of pronouncing the same judgment which has already been passed in respect of other co-accused in the same case crime number and entire exercise will be rendered futile.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, this application is allowed and the charge sheet and subsequent proceedings initiated against the applicants in case No. 1089 of 2005 State Vs. Arvind and others, arising out of case crime No. 54 of 1995, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 I.P.C. Police Station Bhithri Chainpur, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist, Bareilly are quashed.  

Dt/-  5.10.2005.

Rmk.


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.