REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

Istiyaq Ahamad Appellant

V/S

STATE OF U.P. Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

D STEPHENS VS. NOSIBOLLA [REFERRED TO]
K CHINNASWAMY REDDY VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
MAHENDRA PRATAP SINGH VS. SARJU SINGH [REFERRED TO]
KHETRABASI SAMUAL F VS. STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED TO]
SATYENDRA NATH DUTTA VS. RAM NARAIN [REFERRED TO]
DULI CHAND VS. DELHI ADMINISTRATION [REFERRED TO]
PATHUMMA VS. MUHAMMAD [REFERRED TO]
MUNNA DEVI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
JAGANNATH CHAUDHARY VS. RAMAYAN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
RAM BRIKSH SINGH VS. AMBIKA YADAV [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRAPPA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GOA VS. SANJAY THAKRAN [REFERRED TO]
JOHAR VS. MANGAL PRASAD [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. SHERA RAM ALIAS VISHNU DUTTA [REFERRED TO]
SHIVASHARANAPPA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri T.A. Khan, learned counsel for revisionist, learned A.G.A. for State-respondent and perused the record.

(2.) This criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C., has been filed aggrieved by judgment and order dated 28.02.2000 passed by Sessions Judge, Rampur in Sessions Trial No. 238 of 1995 acquitting the accused-respondents under Section 302/34, 325/34 and 302 I.P.C.

(3.) Despite repeated query learned counsel for revisionist could not point out any error in the judgment in question particularly in view of the categorical finding recorded by Court below that both the witnesses of fact, i.e., PWs-1 and 2 were found interested and partisan witnesses and there is major contradiction in their statements and statement of PW-3. These findings have not been shown perverse or contrary to material on record so as to justify interference in criminal revision.

Click here to view full judgment.

ISTIYAQ AHAMAD Vs. STATE OF U.P.

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address