CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench

State of U.P. vs Jamaat Ali and Others

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 30 September 2011 · Citation: (2011) 09 AHC CK 0418

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sudhir Kumar Saxena, J · Abdul Mateen, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 378(3) · Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 307, 323, 324, 34, 452
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Case No. 135 of 2011
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 337 words
1.

Heard Learned Counsel for the State.

2.

This application u/s 378 (3) Code of Criminal Procedure. has been moved on behalf of the State for grant of leave to appeal against judgment of acquittal dated 28-06-2011 passed by the learned Special/Additional Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri, by means of which Respondents have been convicted under Sections 323/34, 324/34 and 452 Indian Penal Code in Sessions Trial No. 650 of 2004, but have been acquitted of the charges levelled against them u/s 307/34 Indian Penal Code. We have gone through the judgment of the court below.

3.

As it comes out that four persons received injuries out of which three injured persons were examined but their testimonies have been discarded mainly on the ground that the Doctor who has examined the injured has not indicated that the injuries received by the injured in ordinary course could be dangerous to life. It has further been argued that the incident has taken place at 5:30 P.M. in the month of February whereby the accused-respondents armed with Knife, Kaata and Lathi had inflicted injuries upon the injured persons. It is submitted that the prosecution evidence has been discarded by the court below on surmises and conjectures.

4.

It also comes out from the judgment of the court below that the court concerned although has reached to the conclusion that the Respondents did commit offence under Sections 452, 323/34, 324/34 Indian Penal Code but has also recorded a finding that offence u/s 307/34 I.P.C. is not made out and, thus, on the one hand convicted all the Respondents under Sections 452, 323/34, 324/34 Indian Penal Code but acquitted the Respondents from the charges levelled against them u/s 307/34 I.P.C.5.

5.

We find force in the argument advanced by the Learned Counsel for the State. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the leave to appeal is granted.

6.

Admit.

7.

Let bailable warrant be issued against the Respondents through Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned fixing 16th November, 2011 for their attendance before this Court.