DINESH CHANDRA PACHAURI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision has been directed against the judgment and order dated 2.9.1987 passed by VI Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur in S.T. No. 318 of 1986 State v. Ashok Kumar and Ors., under Sections 147/440, 324/149, 307/149/ 395 & 307 I.P.C., P.S. Panki, District Kanpur Nagar, by which the Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 have been acquitted of the charges levelled against them.

(2.) I have heard Shri B.N. Singh, learned Counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for Respondent No. 1 on this revision and perused the record. None has appeared on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 to oppose this revision.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the revisionist has contended that the learned Sessions Judge has committed illegality in holding that the F.I.R. is highly delayed and the complainant in consultation with his counsel explained the delay in lodging the F.I.R. by disclosing the facts that the police of the said police station with a view to screen the offenders did not lodge the report and consequently he had to send his application to S.S.P., Kanpur Nagar, on the basis of which the F.I.R. was lodged and the case was investigated. It is further contended that the learned Sessions Judge has not taken into consideration the material facts of non existence of any report lodged by accused persons, while they attempted to conceal the real story but the learned Sessions Judge recorded findings in routine manner. The accused persons in their statements recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure failed to state that they caused injuries to the complainant in their self defence, meaning thereby accused persons did not take plea of self defence.