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


Ujagaar Singh v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1891 of 1990 [2006] RD-AH 15823 (11 September 2006)


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. 55

Criminal Revision No. 1891 of 1990

Ujagar Singh and another.....................................Revisionists


State of U.P. and another....................................Respondents

   Connected with

Criminal Revision No. 1275 of 1990

Radha Raman and others.......................................Revisionists


State of U.P. and another....................................Respondents


Hon'ble Amar Saran, J.

Criminal Revisions No. 1891 of 1990 and 1275 of 1990 have been connected and are being disposed of by common  a  judgement.

The brief facts of the case are that one Krishna Murari was murdered in the night of 11/12.5.1989 at 2.30 A.M. Two versions were set up about the cause of his death. One version was set up by Prahlad, the father of the deceased Krishna Murari, who lodged an FIR on 12.5.89 at about 6.20 A.M. at police station Madhogarh, district Jalaun alleging that Radha Raman, Dinesh Kumar, Ram Kumar, Raj Kumar and Arbind Kumar (revisionists in criminal revision NO. 1275 of 1990) had murdered his son at about 2.30 A.M. on 11/12.5.1989 when he was sleeping in his field, where lantern was burning. The said incident was witnessed by Daya Ram, Shridhar, Ujagar Singh and Raj Narain.  

The said revision No. 1275 of 1990 was filed against the order dated 1.6.1990 passed by the Special Judge (EC Act)/Addition Sessions Judge, Orai allowing the criminal Revision No. 43 of 1990 and setting aside the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun dated 7.3.1990 refusing to commit the case against Radha Raman, Dinesh Kumar, Ram Kumar, Raj Kumar and Arbind Kumar for trial.

After investigation, however, the police submitted charge sheet against Raj Narain, who was a witness in the report lodged by Prahlad on the basis of confessional statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. given by Raj Narain and recovery of axe was effected from him.

Smt. Sunita Devi, wife of the deceased, filed a complaint in which she has made Ujagar Singh and Mohar Singh as an accused to have murdered her husband along with Raj Narain.

Ujagar Singh and Mohar Singh have preferred criminal revision No. 1891 of 1990 against the order dated 18.9.1990 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun in case No. 2657 of 1989 (Smt. Sunita Devi Vs. Raj Narain and others) under Sections 302/34 IPC.

As there are two conflicting versions about the cause of death of the deceased, it is obvious that the cases against both sets of accused cannot be quashed. It is for the trial court to decide which of the two versions is correct and for making this decision the trial court needs to follow the view of the Apex Court in State of U.P. Vs. Mishri Lal (2003)9 SCC 426,  which has relied on another decision of the Apex Court in Nathi Lal Vs. State of U.P. 1990 (Supp) SCC 145, wherein it has been held that when there are cross cases, it is better to direct that the same learned Judge must try both the cross cases one after the other. After the recording of evidence in one case is completed, he must hear the arguments, but he must reserve the judgement. Thereafter he must proceed to hear the cross case and after recording all the evidence he must hear the arguments but  reserve the judgment in that case. The same learned Judge must thereafter dispose of the matters by two separate Judgements. In deciding each of the cases, he can rely only on the evidence recorded in that particular case. The evidence recorded in the cross case cannot be looked into. Nor can the Judge be influenced by whatever is argued in the cross case. Each case must be decided on the basis of the evidence which has been placed on record in that particular case without being influenced in any manner by the evidence or arguments urged in the cross case. But both the Judgements must be pronounced by the same learned Judge one after the other.

The same view has been highlighted in the case of Sudhir and others Vs. State of M.P. (2001)2 SCC 688 that the practical reasons for adopting this procedure  that two cross cases should be tried by the same court were that it staves off the danger of an accused being convicted before his whole case is before the court, it deters conflicting judgements being delivered upon similar facts and in reality the case and the counter case are to all intents and purposes, different or conflicting versions of one incident.

In view of what has been indicated hereinabove, both the revisions are dismissed.

The matter is now remanded to the trial court for disposal of the trial by the same judge, to be nominated by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalaun, in accordance with the observations give hereinabove.

As the trial of both the cases have remained stayed for very long time, the trial court is directed to proceed with the trial expeditiously.

Office is directed to communicate this order to the trial court concerned within two weeks from today.  

Dated 11.9.2006



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.