SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Gyanendra Singh @ Ashok Singh vs State Of U.P. And Anr on 24 February, 2020


?Court No. – 74

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 7287 of 2020

Applicant :- Gyanendra Singh @ Ashok Singh

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr

Counsel for Applicant :- Kaushal Kishore Mani,Shiv Pratap Singh

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon’ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.

This Application, under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed by the Applicant, Gyanendra Singh @ Ashok Singh, with a prayer for setting aside impugned order, dated7.1.2020, passed by the Additional District Sessions Judge Court No.10, Kanpur Nagar, in Sessions Trial No.307 of 2018, State vs. Indrawati and others, under Sections 498A and 306 of Indian Penal Code, arising out of Case Crime No.0840 of 2017, under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station-Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar, and, thereby, allow application, dated 18.12.2019.

Learned counsel for applicant argued that the deceased was taken for treatment at 7 Air Force Hospital, Kanpur Cantt., where, she remained under treatment for about half an hour and ultimately was declared as dead at 10.35 AM. In between, she was treated by Dr. Altmas and an application was moved for examining Dr. Altmas, a material witness, which was rejected by the Trial court, while passing order, impugned herein. It was an abuse of process of law. Hence, for avoiding abuse of process of law, this Application, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., has been filed, with above prayer.

Learned AGA, representing State of U.P., has vehemently opposed this Application with this contention that fact was that while the deceased was taken to 7 Air Force Hospital, she was dead by hanging, having ligature mark over her neck and she was declared brought dead. The medico legal report of 7 Air Force Hospital reveals that she was administered no treatment, except an attempt to revive her, but, ultimately declared dead. Hence, the Medical Officer was neither made a witness by the prosecution nor his testimony is of any relevance for this Trial, and as such, learned Trial court has rightly rejected same.

Having heard learned counsel for both sides and gone through materials placed on record, it is apparent that an application was moved by the Defence counsel before the Trial court with a prayer for summoning a witness, who was neither examined by the prosecution nor his name was given in the list of witnesses by the prosecution and he was said to be an important witness because he has treated deceased prior to her death at 7 Air Force Hospital, Kanpur Nagar. This Application was opposed by the prosecution side and Trial court has rejected same.

The relevance of above witness is being argued before this court that in medico legal report, it has specifically been mentioned that the deceased was brought by her husband, whereas, informant has said that it was she, who brought her at above Hospital. This fact has been written in the medical report, which was opposed by the prosecution. Hence, this documentary evidence is to be taken by the Trial court. However, this evidence reveals that there was no treatment, rather, an attempt to get the deceased revive was made, who was of this condition, amounting to dead and ultimately, she was declared dead. Therefore, testimony of Dr. Altmas is of no importance, and as such, Trial court has rightly rejected above Application. There is no abuse of process of law in passing impugned order. Hence, this Application, being devoid of merits, fails and stands dismissed as such.

Order Date :- 24.2.2020




Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2022 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation