M tHB .HIGH COURT OF JU)ICATURJ3 A-r JAB&LPUR, •ffiDdINAL RSVISICNNO. %S1s v. Kstfi
Case at a glance
- Bench
- BLE R N CHANDRAKAR
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 s. 114
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF CHHATFISGARH AT BILASPUR Crimmal Revraon No. 813 of 1998 Division Bench: Goram: HON'BLE MR.T.P.8HARMA & HON'-BLE MR. R.N.CHANDRAKAR, JJ. APPLICANT Sat^narayan Mishra Versus RESPONDENT Ashok Das Manikpuri [Application under Sectton 397yead wiih Section401 oftheCode of Crmunal Procedure, 1973] Present:- Mr. Malay Shrivastava, counsel for the applicant. None for the respondent. ORDER (Passedon 22.11.2012) PerT.P.S»iarma,J:-
By this revision, applicant has challenged the legality and propriety of the judgment of acquitted of the respondent dated 06.05.1998 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara, Distt.-Durg in Sessions Trial No. 249/95 whereby while convieting and sentencing 2 accused perscns Sitaram and Ram Kumar under Sections 302/34 and 323 oftfae Indian Penal Code aequitted the respondent of the charges for causing honricidal death amount to murder of Arviad Mishra.
Acquittal of fhe respondent has been challenged by Ifae applicant. Respondent was a waiter and cQ'.nmitted an ofifenee under Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code for exemption. Therefore, by acquitting tiie respondent Court below has eommitted Ulegality.
We have perused the judgment impugn^.
( Shri Akhil Mishra, Deputy Govt. Advocate present ia the Court submits that appeal filed against Ifaejudgment ofconviction-by two accused have been disppsed ofby this Court aiid conviction has been maintained. !Bt .•^^•iiiUini.j "-"••^. 'i.y Ciiminal Revision No. 813 of 1998 Vage 2 of2
Leamed counsel for the appellant submits Ifaat respondent was Fesent on the spot at the time of iacident m fi-ont of tfae house of Satyanarayan, he was awaiter. Two offenders who have been eonvicted for causini homicidal death amount to murder of fhe deceased. This evidence is to prove the factum of abet meat of the offence by the sufficient respondenl, but Court below has acquitted tiie respondent.
As per judgment impugned, respondenl, Kotwar of the village was present in front of the house of Satyaaarayan. Prosecution has not proved overact or even relationship of the respondent witii convicted co-accused Sitaram & Ram Kumar. Mere presence near the spot in the vitlage that too of Kotwarbyitselfis not sufficient to connect ti»eperson witficrime mquestion.
We do not find any manifest illegality or glaring mistake ia the judgment impugned requiring any interference in exereise ofrevisionaljurisdiction against tiiejudgment of acquittal. 8, Consequently, revision is liable to be dismissed and is faereby dismissed atthestegeofadmissionitself. —~—— Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge fs. Sd/- T.P.Sharma Judge Chandra
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.