IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD (LUCKNOW BENCH)
VED PRAKASH VAISH, MOHD FAIZ ALAM KHAN, JJ.
Ram Ashrey - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1180 of 2003
Decided On : 11-09-2019
The court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant, Ram Ashrey, against the judgment and order dated 11.07.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.) IIIrd, Pratapgarh in Sessions Trial No. 185 of 2002, arising out of Case Crime No. 127 of 2001, under Section 302, 148, 323/149 and under Section 506 I.P.C., Police Station Baghrai, District Pratapgarh. The court held that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt and the impugned judgment and order can not be termed as either perverse or against the evidence available on record. The court also noted that the appellant has been released on remission of the sentence and, therefore, he need not surrender.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Ram Ashrey, was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for the murder of Suleman. The appellant filed an appeal against the conviction and sentence. The prosecution's case was that the appellant, along with other accused persons, went to the house of the deceased and assaulted him with 'lathi, danda' and 'country-made pistol'. The deceased died on the spot. The appellant denied the charges and claimed trial. The trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant. The appellant filed an appeal against the conviction and sentence.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt and the impugned judgment and order can not be termed as either perverse or against the evidence available on record. The court also noted that the appellant has been released on remission of the sentence and, therefore, he need not surrender.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt? 2. Whether the impugned judgment and order can be termed as either perverse or against the evidence available on record?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt. The court relied on the testimonies of the eye witnesses, the medical evidence, and the circumstantial evidence to conclude that the appellant was guilty of the murder of Suleman. 2. The court held that the impugned judgment and order can not be termed as either perverse or against the evidence available on record. The court noted that the trial court had considered all the evidence on record and had arrived at a reasonable conclusion.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/Shri Sachin Pratap Singh as well as learned Addl. G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
2. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 11.07.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.) IIIrd, Pratapgarh in Sessions Trial No. 185 of 2002, arising out of Case Crime No. 127 of 2001, under Section 302, 148, 323/149 and under Section 506 I.P.C., Police Station Baghrai, District Pratapgarh.
3. Shri Sachin Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the appellant on the basis of the instructions received by him from his client/appellant namely Ram Ashrey, who has been released from Jail on the basis of remission of sentence granted by the State Government, submits that he do not want to press the appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant also endorsed on the Memo of Appeal that he do not want to press the appeal on merits and the same be dismissed as not pressed.
4. In this regard, provisions of Section 384,385 and 386 Cr.P.C. are relevant, which are being reproduced as under:
384. Summary dismissal of appeal.-(1) If upon examining the petition of appeal and copy of the judgment received under section 382 or section 383, the Appellate Court considers that there is no sufficient ground for interfering, it may dismiss the appeal summarily: Provided that-
(a) no appeal presented under section 382 shall be dismissed unless the appellant or his pleader has had a reasonable opportunity of being heard in support of the same;
(b) no appeal presented under section 383 shall be dismissed except after giving the appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard in support of the same, unless the Appellate Court considers that the appeal is frivolous or that the production of the accused in custody before the Court would involve such inconvenience as would be disproportionate in the circumstances of the case;
(c) no appeal presented under section 383 shall be dismissed summarily until the period allowed for preferring such appeal has expired.
(2) Before dismissing an appeal under this section, the Court may call for the record of the case.
(3) Where the Appellate Court dismissing an appeal under this section is a Court of Session or of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, it shall record its reasons for doing so.
(4) Where an appeal presented under section 383 has been dismissed summarily under this section and the Appellate Court finds that another petition of appeal duly presented under section 382 on behalf of the same appellant has not been considered by it, that Court may, notwithstanding anything contained in section 393, if satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of justice so to do, hear and dispose of such appeal in accordance with law.
385. Procedure for hearing appeals not dismissed summarily.-(1) If the Appellate Court does not dismiss the appeal summarily, it shall cause notice of the time and place at which such appeal will be heard to be given-
(i) to the appellant or his pleader;
(ii) to such officer as the State Government may appoint in this behalf;
(iii) if the appeal is from a judgment of conviction in a case instituted upon complaint, to the complainant;
(iv) if the appeal is under section 377 or section 378, to the accused, and shall also furnish such officer, complainant and accused with a copy of the grounds of appeal.
(2) The Appellate Court shall then send for the record of the case, if such record is not already available in that Court, and hear the parties:
Provided that if the appeal is only as to the extent or the legality of the sentence, the Court may dispose of the appeal without sending for the record.
(3) Where the only ground for appeal from a conviction is the alleged severity of the sentence, the appellant shall not, except with the leave of the Court, urge or be heard in support of any other ground.
386. Powers of the Appellate Court.-After perusing such record and hearing the appellant or his pleader, if he appears,
Sucha singh v/s State of Punjab
Rishi Nandan Pandit and others Vs. State of Bihar
Lallu Manjhi vs. State of Jharkhand
Masalti and Ors. v. State of U.P.
Bhagaloo Lodh and Anr. v. State of U.P.
Dilip S. Dahanukar v. Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd. and Anr.
Babu Rajirao Shinde v. State of Maharashtra
Siddanna Apparao Patil v. State of Maharashtra
Jagdish Prasad v. State of M.P.
State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh
Nisar Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Sohrab S/o Beli Nayata and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Ugar Ahir and Ors. v. The State of Bihar
Zwinglee Ariel v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Balaka Singh and others v. state of Punjab
Nisar Alli v. The State of Uttar Pradesh
State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Kalki and another
Krishna Mochi and others v. State of Bihar etc.
Raj Kumar Singh alias Raju alias Batya v. State of Rajasthan
Dhari and Ors. v. State of U.P.
Chakali Maddilety and Ors. v State of A.P.
Sachchey Lal Tiwari v. State of U.P.
M.C. Ali and Anr. v. State of Kerala
Myladimmal Surendran and Ors. v. State of Kerala
Shyam v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Surendra Pal and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.
Krishna Mochi and Ors. v. State of Bihar etc.
Balake Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab.
Himanshu @ Chintu v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Guli Chand and Ors. V. State of Rajasthan
Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras
Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan
State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh
State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Kalki and Anr.
Rana Partap and Ors. v. State of Haryana
Gurucharan Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab
Sohrab S/o Beli Nayata and Anr. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.