INDEX

1. Introduction
2. Details of my daily court visit.
3. Case analysis (criminal)
4. Case Analysis (Civil)
5. Client Interview
INTRODUCTION

For the purpose of Moot Court Exercise (Paper No.- BLBH-415) B.A.LL.B(Hons.)
VIIth Semester, I was assigned to do court visit and two trials, one civil and one
criminal and during my attendance in the court on different days to maintain a record
of that entering various steps observed during my attendance. This was assigned to
me by the Dean, Law School, B.H.U. This was assigned to do under the able
guidance and supervision of an Advocate.

In this regard, t went to Sitapur District and sessions court. I concerned my family
advocate Mr. Deepak Jha. I gave him the letter from Dean, Law School and asked
to perform my clinical course under his able guidance and supervision. He accepted
my proposal and letter of the Dean, Law School and said that he shall be in great
pleasure in giving legal training to a student forwarded by the Dean.

He went to contents of the letter and told me to write a consent letter in the name of
the Dean, Law School. When the letter was complete he dated and signed on it.

I was very much pleased to work as a trainee student under guidance and supervision
of a legal luminary like him.

On compliance of my court visit program he filled the entries of the certificate and
signed on that, and wishing my bright future and thanking Dean, Law School,
B.H.U.
DETAILS OF MY DAILY COURT VISIT, WORK
AND EXPERIENCES-

I Performed my clinical course under the able guidance and supervision of legal
luminary.

Details of my daily Court visits are as follows-

2 June, 2017
Today was my first day of court visit program, in the court of the civil Judge Junior
Division, Faridabad. I was there with my legal luminary.

I appeared in the court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sitapur, with the learned
counsel in the case of

Rampati & Ors.

V.

Ramdas & Ors.

Steps observed by me in the court-

In this case my counsel was representing the plaintiff i.e. Rampati

 A plaint was represented by my counsel on behalf of the plaintiff with an

application under Order I, Rule 8 of the CPC.
  An application was heard and considering the plaint being in the interest of
public at large, the Civil Judge Jr. Division, permitted to present the plaint
on the next date of hearing i.e. 3 June 2017. Order I Rule 8 of the CPC, one
person may sue or defend on behalf of all in the same interest.

3 June, 2017
 The case was called for hearing.
 The plaint was presented by my counsel on behalf of the plaintiff in the
court of Civil Judge Junior Division.
 The plaint was heard and considered and the suit was instituted.
 It was said by the Judge that it shall be unlawful and end of justice to pass
any order without issuing a notice to the next party i.e. defendant.
 Therefore, a notice was sent to the defendant with an order to produce
documents for inspection under Appendix 6(c), order XI Rule 14 on the next
date of hearing.
 The case was dated on 30/06/17.

DETAILS OF THE CASE

In the court of Civil Judge Jr. Division, Sitapur.

Civil suit No.- 50 of 2017

1. Rampati s/o Gajropan, age 46 yrs.

2. Arjun Maurya s/o Late Ramsubhag, age 65 yrs.
 3. Bhullan Maurya s/o Behan Maurya, age 51 yrs.
4. Babulal s/o Badhe Shyam, age 24 yrs.

All residents of Sitapur.

-PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

1. Ramdas s/o Suraj Prasad Singh, age 45 yrs., r/o Mirzapur, Current Address-
Sitapur
2. Bhaweta Nand s/o Ashok Rao Sindhre, Address- Sitapur

-DEFENDANT

FACTS OF THE CASE

 The plaintiff claimed that the defendant had mingled a public pathway with
his own property and he is boundering the said pathway and is making a gate
on the same.
 That after the construction of the said gate the same public pathway shall be
permanently destructed.
 That the same pathway is the way which is connected to the main road.
 That after said construction there shall be irreversible loss to the public at
large.

5 June, 2017
In the court of Civil Judge Sr. Division, Sitapur

Civil Suit No.- 147 of 2011

 1. Baij Nath Prasad, 65 years, s/o Late Raghbeer
2. Pappu Patel, 9 yrs., s/o Late Sunder Prasad Patel
3. Babita Patel, 7 yrs., d/o Sunder Prasad Patel

Gardian of the minors- Baij Nath i.e. P.N. 1

All residents of Sitapur

VERSUS

1. Paramjeet Taneja, adult w/o Late Surendra Taneja, r/o of H.N. 3726, Sitapur.
2. Sundar Prasad Patel, s/o Baijnath Prasad, R/O Sitapur
3. Anant Kumar, adult s/o Satya Narayan, r/o Dariyapur, Sitapur
4. Vijay Singh Rana, adult s/o Baldev Singh, r/o H.N. 9/2280, Sitapur
5. Aman, adult s/o Sohan Lal, r/o Ramnagar, Sitapur
6. Sameer, adult, r/o Ramnagar, Sitapur
7. Shishir, adult s/o sunil Kumar, r/o of ramnagar, Sitapur

STEPS OBSERVED IN THE COURT

 The case was called for hearing.
 Both the parties were present
 The defendant filed his objection and affidavit and document under
Appendix 6(c) of C.P.C
 The case was dated for further proceeding
 The date for next hearing was 10.06.2017

FACT OF THE CASE:

The fact of the case is as follows:

 That the relation between the plaintiff and the defendant no. 2 in accordance
to the family tree.
 That the defendant no. 2 Sundar is a chain smoker, drunker and he has a
company of bad man who always use bhaang, ganja and alcohol.
 That the plaintiff no. 1 was a rail driver.
 That the defendant no. 2 has an illegal physical relation with defendant no. 1
 That the defendant no. 2 showing himself the owner of the property
purchased by his own father i.e. plaintiff no. 1, sold to defendant no. 1.

PRAYER OF THE PLAINTIFF IN THE PLAINT:

That father has no right to sale a minor’s property for any illegal purpose.

Therefore, such sale of property is illegal and is able to cancel.

6 JUNE, 2017
In the court of Civil Judge Jr. Division, Sitapur

Civil Suit no.- 52 of 2017

1. Mangla Prasad, 45 yrs., s/o Bhagwati

2. Kamlesh, 40 yrs., s/o Bhagwati
3. Nandu, 35 yrs., s/o Bhagwati

All residents of Devdattpur, Sitapur

-Plaintiff

VERSUS

1. State of U.P.
2. Gram Panchayat, Naugarh, Sitapur

-Defendant

PROCEEDINGS IN THE COURT-

 The case was called for hearing.
 Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 were present
 Plaint was heard.
 Since, the defendant no. 2 was present therefore, it was said by the
honorable court to deliver a notice by the registered post to defendant no.1
 The case was dated no. 16/06/17

FACTS OF THE CASE:

Some important points of the plaints are-

 That the plaintiffs are residents of Sitapur.

 That the plaintiff had 8 bigha land in the village.
 That the plaintiff had possession on the said land from the time of more than
100 years.
 That the said land is not the land of gram panchayat.
 That the defendant no. 2 has no right to register the land.
 That the defendant no. 1 also has no relation to the said land.
 That the threats of the lekhpal caused the plaintiff to present tis plaint.

7 JUNE, 2017
In the court of SDO, Sitapur

Miscellaneous Application No. 19 of 2014

Public Works Department

VERSUS

Lal Barat

Application U/S 33/39 of the land Revenue Act.

33/39- Maintenance of paper

PROCEEDING IN THE COURT:

  The case was called for proceeding.
 Both parties were present.
 The application was heard.
 The defendant requested for the time submission of the report of the area
lekhpal, about the disputed land.
 The time was granted.
 The case was dated for further proceeding.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

 That the National Highway from Mughasaray to Sitapur passes through the
village of complainant.
 That the said land had been mingled with the local area and the said Natioanl
Highway had been constructed.
 That after the payment of the price of the said land it became the property of
PWD through the state.
 That the khatauni of the said land which was made according to UP
Zamindari Abolition Act and Land Revenue Act.
 That due to some fault in the understanding of the year this became
discontinued in the next year.
 That the new number of the said land i.e. Gata No. 45 and 46 of Chakbandi
Maintainence became Gata No. 68 area 68/Heactare.
 That the said mistake caused for the maintenance of the case.

8 JUNE, 2017
In the court of Civil Judge Junior Division, Sitapur

Civil Suit No. -120 of 2012

1. Ramkisun s/o Late Ramlagan, age 75 yrs, r/o village- Bakshi ka Talab,
Sitapur

-Plaintiff

VERSUS

1. State of U.P.
2. SDM, Sitapur
3. Tahsildar, Sitapur
4. Rajkali w/o Ramdev, r/o Bakshi ka Talab, Sitapur

-defendant

PROCEEDING OF THE COURT

1. The case was called for hearing
2. Both the parties were presented before the court.
3. It was the date for argument on the matter in the issue.
4. The application was accepted and time was granted.
5. The case was dated to 17/06/17.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

 1. That the plaintiff is resident of village Bakshi ka Talab.
2. That the plaintiff is in possession of the land Araji no. 49 area 0.031 hectare
from time of more than 180 yrs.
3. That the assistants of the defendant no. 1,2 and 3 warned and threatened the
plaintiff that they shall disposses them from the said property and shall
register the said property to defendant no. 4 i.e. Rajkali Devi w/o Ramdev.
4. This act of defendants caused the plaintiff to present such plaint.

9 JUNE, 2017
The court of Civil Judge Junior Division, Sitapur

Civil Suit No. 43 of 2013

1. Uma Shankar, s/o Bhola Shankar, r/o of Village Itaunja, Sitapur

-Plaintiff

VERSUS

1. District Officer, Irrigation Department

2. Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department

-Defendant

PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT

1. The case was called for hearing.
 2. Parties were present with their counsel.
3. It was date for argument 0n 6(c), Appendix 6(c) of CPC
4. Argument on 6(c) was heard.
5. The case was dated for further proceedings.
6. The case was dated to 18/6/17 for next date of hearing.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

1. That the disputed land is in the Araji No. 66 area 14.70 square feet.
2. That the defendant claimed that the said land was never in possession of the
plaintiff.
3. That the defendant also claimed that the irrigation department had never
taken any tax on the said land.

10 JUNE, 2017
The court of Sub District Magistrate, Sitapur

Case no. 176 of 2009

1. Harman Singh s/o Late Suswant Singh

2. Baluram Singh s/o Late Suswant Singh
3. Arbind Singh s/o Late Suswant Singh
4. Navin Singh s/o Late Suswant Singh
5. Sunil Singh s/o Late Suswant Singh
6. Ghanshyam Singh s/o Late Balwant Singh
7. Ajay Singh s/o Late Balwant Singh
 8. Rajiv Singh s/o Late Balwant Singh
9. Binod Singh s/o Late Balwant Singh
10.Rahul Singh s/o Late Balwant Singh
11.Rohit Singh s/o Late Balwant Singh
12.Sanjay Singh s/o Shriwant Singh

All resident of Kakori, Sitapur.

-Plaintiff

VERUS

1. Irrigation Department, by Executive Engineer

2. State of U.P., by D.M., Lucnkow
3. Gram Panchayat, Kakori, Sitapur, By Pradhan

-Defendant

PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT

1. The case was called for hearing.
2. Both the parties were present.
3. Counsel for the defendant filed the objection on the plaint.
4. The objection was heard.
5. The case was dated for further proceedings.
6. The next date for hearing was 18/07/17.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

That the plaint was under section 229B/229D of the Zamindari Abolition Act and
Land Revenue Act.

12 JUNE, 2017
In the court of Civil Judge Jr. Division, Sitapur

Civil Suit No.- 60 of 2011

1. Murari, 52 yrs., s/o Jagnath

2. Dubra, 45 yrs., s/o Ramjanam

Both resident of village Bitholi, Sitapur, U.P.

-Plaintiff

VERSUS

1. State of U.P., by S.D.M Sitapur

2. Gram Panchayat, Bitholi, Sitapur

-Defendant

PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT

1. The case was called for hearing
2. Both parties were present with their counsel
3. Objective and affidavit under 6(c) was filed by the counsel of respondent.
4. The objection was heard and considered.
5. The case was dated for further proceeding of filling written statement by the
defendant.
 6. The case was dated to 08/08/17.

13 JUNE, 2017
The court of Civil Judge Jr. Division, Sitapur

Civil Suit No.- 52 of 2002

Smt. Sampati w/o Late Chotu Singh

-Plaintiff

VERSUS

Ram Singh s/o Ram Shankar

-Defendant

ACTS/ RULES/ORDERS-

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Order XXII, Rule IV

PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT

1. The case was called for hearing.
2. Both parties were present with their counsel.
3. This was the date for the submission of the commission report and
consideration on it.
4. The commission report was submitted under order XXVI Rule 9 of CPC.
 5. Amin Commissioner of court and court has invited objection of the parties
on the commission report.
6. The case was dated on 10/08/17.

14 JUNE, 2017
In the court of Civil Judge Jr. Division, Sitapur

Civil Suit No.- 25 of 2010

1. Mohd. Kaleem s/o Jamal Khan

-Plaintiff

VERSUS

1. State of U.P. and Others

-Defendant

PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT

1. The case was called for hearing.
2. Both parties were present with their counsels.
3. This was the date for amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C.
4. The Application was heard.
5. The Application for amendment was allowed.
6. The court ordered the plaintiff to incorporate the plaint vide.
7. The ordered to submit additional court fees.
8. The case was dated on 8/09/17 for Further Proceedings of the case.
15 JUNE, 2017
The Court of Civil Judge Jr. Division, Sitapur

Civil Suit No. 52 of 2014

1. Mangla Prasad, 45 Yrs., s/o Bhagwati

2. Kamlesh, 40 yrs., s/o Bhagwati
3. Nandu, 35 yrs., s/o Bhagwati

All residents of Sitapur

-Plaintiff

VERSUS

1. State of U.P.
2. Gram Panchayat, Sitapur

-Defendant

PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT

1. The case was called for hearing.
2. Both parties were present.
3. This was the date to file written Statement by Defendant.
4. Counsel for the defendant filed the written statement.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The facts of the case are in the previous date of hearing.

16 JUNE, 2017
In the court of Civil Judge Jr. Division, Sitapur

Civil Suit no. 50 of 2014

1. Rampati, age 46 yrs.

2. Arjun Maurya, age 65 yrs.
3. Bhullan Maurya, age 26 yrs.
4. Babulal. Age 24 yrs.

All residents of Sitapur

-Plaintiff

VERSUS

1. Ramdas, age 45 yrs, r/o Mirzapur, current address- Faridabad

2. Bhaweta Nand s/o Ashok Rao Sindre, Address- Faridabad

-Defendant

PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT

1. The case was called for hearing.
2. Both the parties were present.
3. Counsel for the defendant filed the document for inspection under Appendix
6(c), order XI Rule 14 of the CPC.
4. The documents were verified and next date was 12/06/17.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The facts of the case is endorsed with the previous date of hearing i.e. 3 June, 2017

17 JUNE, 2017
In the Court of S.D.O, Sitapur

Miscellaneous Application no. 19 of 2016

PWD

VERSUS

Lal Bhrat

Application under Section 33/39 of the Land Revenue act for maintenance of
documents.

PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT

1. The case was called for hearing.
2. Both the parties were present.
3. It was the date for submission of the report of lekhpal regarding the disputed
land.
4. Learned counsel for the defendant report.
5. The case was dated for further proceeding.
6. The next date for hearing was 15/08/2017.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The facts of the case is on the page of previous date of hearing i.e. on 6 JUNE,
2017

19 JUNE, 2017
In the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Sitapur

Miscellaneous Application no. 212 of 2013

1. Paras Nath, age 45 Yrs. s/o Ram Nath, r/o Sitapur

-Applicant

VERSUS

1. Mookchand, 46 yrs, s/o Gangaram

2. Dinesh, 22 Yrs., s/o Mookchand
3. Rahul, 25 yrs., s/o Vidhyaadhar

All residents of Sitapur

-Defendant

Application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C.

PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT

1. Application was presented in the court of Judicial Magistrate first class.
2. It was heard and it was considered to be genuine.
3. It was ordered to police officer incharge of the police station to investigate
into the matter and to present the report on the next date of hearing.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
In the said application, the applicant informed to the court the following things:

1. That when the applicant was coming from the market to his village, then on
the way defendant stopped him.
2. That the defendant were with lathi.
3. That the defendants also took forcefully Rs. 5000 from applicant’s pocket
and wrist watch.
4. That the victim forseeing the intention of the defendants run away to his
house in the village.
5. That the defendant chased him.
6. That the defendants also beaten the victim with leg and fist and abused him.
7. That with the help of neighbors and villagers who came on the spot after
hearing the cry of the victim, the applicant was able to save his life.

20 JUNE, 2017
In the court of Judicial Magistrate First class, Sitapur

Criminal Case No.- 35 of 2006

Sheela Devi w/o Dulare and d/o Rampati, r/o Sitapur

-Applicant

VERSUS

Dulare s/o Shudhar Yadav, r/o Chakia

 -Respondent

Application under 125 of Cr.P.C.

PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT

1. The case called for hearing.
2. Both the parties were present.
3. Evidence for the defendant was taken.
4. The case was dated for further proceeding.
5. The next date for hearing was 9/9/17.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The Application of the applicant was on the maintenance for wife.

21 JUNE, 2017
In the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sitapur

Criminal Case no.- 220 of 2015

Reeta Devi w/o Rambachan Kushwaha, r/o of village Balwadal, Ramnagar

-Applicant

VERSUS

Pramod Kumar Maurya, s/o Pannalal Maurya, Village- Tarkulewa, Sitapur

Application under 125 CrPC.

For the maintenance of wife-

PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT

1. The case was called for hearing.
2. Applicant present today.
3. The court issued a notice to the defendant to present in the court with
objection on the next date of hearing.
4. The case was dated on 19/7/17.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The facts are unknown due some confidentiality as told by my counsel.

CASE ANALYSIS (CRIMINAL)

In the court of Upper Session Judge Fast Track Court No.1 Sitapur (U.P)
Hon’ble judge -Sangam Lal

Criminal Case No. - 48/94

Decided on -15 of 2016

State of U.P – Prosecution

V/S

Pradeep Singh

Babbu Singh (Dhirendra Pratap Singh)

Counsels:

Counsels for prosecution -Nandlal Maurya

Counsels for Defence – Ram Singh

Charges Framed:

Under section 323/34, 504, 506 of I.P.C and under section 3(1) of the Schedule
caste act and Schedule tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

TRIAL OF THE CASE –

The case was tried by the session court Sitapur (U.P.) by Hon’ble Judge Shyamlal.
Case opening for Prpsecution (Sec .226 Crpc)-

According to sec.226 of Crpc the prosecution opened the case before Hon’ble court
in the following manner:

1: That the informant Raj Kumar Yadav witness no.1 is resident of village Chituni,
Thana, Chaubepur dist. And belongs to scheduled caste. Rajkumar Prasad is a
homeguard in central jail Shivpur.

2: That on 6:00 A.M. of 23/03/1997 after completing his duty the informant started
for his home Chittauni and reached at 8:00 A.M. on the same date.

3: That after sometime accused Pradeep Singh and Babbu Singh who are the
residents of the same village came to his house and said him to dig out potato crops
from his own fields.

4: That the informant denied to work in the field saying that just now he is coming
for his duty and is tried off. Then, the accused ordered the wife of informant
Prabhavati Devi (Witness no.2) to come on the work in the field.

5: That the witness no.2 Prabhavati Devi also denied to work by saying that she
does not work in other’s field as labourer.

6: That hearing such refusal the accused began to abuse related to her caste and
many other vulgar abuses and with lathi, leg and punch they began to beat his wife
and his father Lachhu Ram.

7: That witness no.2 Prabhavati Devi got injured but not extremely and father
Lachhu ram was injured seriously but due to the lack of money he did not took him
to hospital for his treatment.

8: That the medical investigation of wife Smt. Prabhavati Devi has been done on
23/3/97 by DR. M.N. Singh practicing in Chiraigaun.
9: That in medical examination the following injuries has been found –

i) Back pain, no external injuries.

ii) Pain in body, no external injuries.

10: That FIR was lodged by informant Raj Kumar Prasad in Thana -Chaubepur.

11: That sub-inspector Shekhar Suman investigated into the matter, took the
statement of witness (i.e.161 statement of CrPc ) and investigated the place of
occurance.

12: That after investigation sub-inspector Shekhar Singh filed chargesheet against
the accused.

Thus, opening of the case by prosecution was over and thus accused was
summoned for further proceeding of the court.

FRAMING OF THE CHARGES: SEC.28(1) OF

CrPC
According to 228(1) of CrPC when hon’ble judge was of opinion that accused has
committed such offence that hon’ble judge framed the charges against the accused
under sec. 323/34, 504, 506 of the IPC and under sec.3(1) of the S.C & S.T Act
1989.

EXPLAINIG THE CHARGES TO THE ACCUSED

[SEC.228 (1) OF CrPC]
According to sec.228 (2) after framing the charges it was read and explained to the
accused and they were asked whether they plead guilty of the offence charged or
not.

The accused did not accept the charges and requested for further consideration of
the case.

EVIDENCE FOR PROSECUTION [SEC.231(1)]

According to sec. 230 of the CrPC the case was dated for prosecution evidence and
then according to sec. 231(1) of the CrPC evidence for prosecution was taken.

Prosecution witness were as follows:

Prosecution witness no. 1: Raj Kumar Prasad

Prosecution witness no. 2: Prabhavati Devi

Prosecution witness no. 3: Dr. M.N Singh

Prosecution witness no. 4: Sub inspector Shekhar Suman

PW 1

The informant Raj Kumar Prasad was brought before the court as PW 1 who gives
pertaining information and statement.

PW 2

Injured wife Prabhavati Devi was brought before the court as PW 2 and by giving
the oral evidence corroborated (6) statement.

PW 3

DR. M. N. Singh was brought before the court as PW 3 who proved the medical
report of PW 2.
PW 4

In the sequence of fourth witness sub-inspector Shekhar Suman was brought before
the court as PW 4, who proved the FIR lodged by Suryanath Rai, G.D. of case,
map of place of occurrence and chargesheet.

Thus, evidence for prosecution was over.

EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED –[SEC 313]

Accused were examined under sec 3 of the CrPC and the statement of the accused
were recorded.

The accused denied the occurrence of any such incident and stated that they are
falsely being implicated in such an incident which did not occurred in reality and
truth Is that the cows of informant usually come in the field of the accused for
eating grass and when they stop the informant from doing so then as a result they
are being implicated in such a false case.

EVIDENCE FOR DEFENCE [223]

According to sec.223 of CrPC evidence for defence was taken.

DW 1

Keshav Prasad was brought before the court as DW 1, who had been Gram
Pradhan of the village – chittauni, Thana – Chaubepur between years 1995 to 2000.
DW 1 gave oral evidence and denied the occurrence of any such incident.

DW 2
Vijay Ram was brought before the court as DW 2, who was the resident of village
Chittauni.

Thus, the defence presented two witness as evidence of the fact that on 23/03/1997
neither such incident occurred nor the defendants beaten the victim and the
informant had made such a false case with the help of police.

The defendant did not present any other oral or written evidence. Evidence for
defence was over.

ARGUMENT [sec 234]

According to sec 234 of CrPC, argument of counsel for prosecution and counsel
for defence was heard.

ARGUMENT FOR PROSECUTION

Counsel for prosecution gave his argument that the statement of injured PW 2
supports the statement of prosecution.

Injuries of PW 2 are proved by the medical report and by the executive Dr

M.N.Singh’s evidence. The counsel for prosecution said that the defendant is
accused had given vulgar abuses relating to the caste of informant and had beaten
the victims and therefore the accused must be punished for the offence charged.

ARGUMENT FOR DEFENCE –

Learned counsel for the defence gave his argument that accused are innocent.
Since, the informant was a homeguard therefore with the support of the police he
has lodged a false FIR while no such incident occurred as presented by
prosecution.

Counsel for defence argued that prosecution has not given evidence for any such
person who has no personal interest in that matter in that matter and who is
unbiased witness. There are factual differences between the statement of evidence
of informant and his wife i.e.PW1 and PW 2 are not only this but the medical
report also doesn’t support the fact that there is any injury to the wife of informant.

The witness of defence who are free and unbiased people of village and have no
personal interest in the matter had also given evidence that no such incident
occurred.

Counsel for defence also argued that the caste abusing words and other vulgar
abuses have not been mentioned in the FIR and 161 statement.

Therefore, the offence charged against the accused is not proved therefore the
accused must be acquitted.

JUDGEMENT
In the words of Hon’ble Judge –

After hearing the argument of both the parties I observed the file very minutely.
Now it is to see whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt or not?

After observing the file it is clear that the prosecution has presented the informant
and his wife as prosecution witness, who have their own interest into the matter.
Thus, prosecution had not presented any such witness who had no personal interest
in the matter. The argument of prosecution is that if the statement of only one eye
witness is corroborated by medical evidence then only on this the accused can be
punished .The court is also satisfied with the argument but here in the FIR it has
been said that when the accused is began to beat the victim then the villagers
gathered on the spot and they saved the victims, therefore are not eye witness of
the incident but villagers also did not see the incident .

The statement of PW 1 is also contradictory on the points that –

1: He says that the accused hit his father three times with lathi respectively on the
left hand, on the back and on the head and the injury caused to his father was that
there was bleeding for hand and head and on the back there was impression of
lathi.

2: But on other point he says that by the beating of the accused his father became
senseless and remained in the situation up to five minutes and also said that he did
not went anywhere for medical treatment of his father.

The informant said that due to the lack of money he did not took his father to the
hospital while he has taken his wife for treatment who was not seriously injured as
his father was.

There is factual contradiction in the statement of PW 1 relating to the injury of his

wife. In his statement on pg.no.4 the informant says that after beating his father the
accused did not go away but they caught his wife and beat her and pulling her
forcefully, took her to the potato field and they forced her to dig the potato. The
informant also says that on the second day of incident his wife dig out the potato
but in the FIR and his statement in the court he said that his wife did not dig the
potato.

The statement of PW 2 also makes it uncertain that whether she went to dig potato
or not because she says that she was sent to dig potato at 11:00 A.M on the date
and she digged potato half an hour only and then she came back to her home for
consuming some food and then she did not go to the field to dig potato again.
While PW 1 says that she dig potato from 10 A.M. to 4 P.M in the field of the
accused.

The informant PW1 also says that due to the beating of the accused there was a
back impression of lathi on the body of his wife while in the medical report no
such black spot has been observed. It was also said in the medical report that there
was no extreme injury.

Therefore, this is also uncertain, whether any injury was caused to PW 2 or not?

The informant i.e. PW 1 also says that when the accused were beating his wife he
ran away from the place due to fear but when he came back he saw the injury
caused to his wife and black spot of lathi on the back of her body. While, on the
page no.4 of his document he said that after beating his wife and father the accused
caught his wife and took her forcefully to the field .

How it is possible in the situation that when he came back he saw the injuries of
his wife just after two minutes of the incident.

Thus, after minute observance of above witnesses, evidences and statement the
following facts are in light:
1: That in written statement and 161 statement it has not said that which particular
abuse has been given by the accused and in the statement in the court. Both witness
has said the different abuse which was given by accused.

2: No medical examination has been done of the injury and wound of the father
Lacchu ram PW 1 says about the home treatment of the injury of lachhuram while
PW 2 denies any such home treatment of the wound of lachhuram.

3: The injuries of prabhavati are also not proved by the medical report because PW
1 says that there was black spot od lathi on her body while in the medical report it
has been clearly mentioned that no external injury caused.

4: The informant i.e. PW 1 has said that on the place of occurrence there was many
villages while no witness has been presented among such villagers except for two
victims.

5: The FIR was lodged in the police station at 15:20 o’clock. The informant and his
wife has said different statement at different times.

One said that they came to the police station by auto and other said they came by
the bus and on the other hand the informant said that they came by foot.

Thus, the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt. Therefore, the charge against the accused 323/34, 504, 506 of IPC and
charge under section 3(1) of scheduled caste and scheduled tribe (prevention of
atrocities) act,1989 is not proved. Therefore, the accused are able to discharge.

ORDER
After the consideration of the case accused Pradeep Singh and Babbu Singh
(Dhirendra Pratap Singh) are discharged from the offences 4/5, 323/34, 504, 506 of
IPC and 4/5 3(1) of schedule caste and schedule tribe (prevention of atrocities ) act,
1989 .The accused are on bail .The bail bond is cancelled and surities also
discharged from their liability of bail of accused .

CASE ANALYSIS (CIVIL)

In the court of Civil Judge Junior Division, Sitapur

Civil suit no -61 of 2017

Ramjanam s/o jagropan

Resident of – Sunderpur, Sitapur (U.P.)

- Plaintiff

V/S

Kalawati w/o Ashok

Resident of Sunderpur, Sitapur (U.P.)

- Defendant

Counsels:

Counsel for Plaintiff – Shrinivash Maurya

Counsel for Defendant – Mr. Ram

FACTS OF THE CASE –

Teerthraj was a former of Sunderpur, Sitapur (U.P.). After, the separation of his
brothers he acquired the holdings of 6 acres in plot No. 66/04 under Khatauni no.
72/48 in village sunderpur, Sitapur. He died in the year 1975 leaving behind his
three sons namely – Rajanam, Babulal, and Shyamlal.

Ramjanam who is eldest son of the deceased is the plaintiff in the case. These three
brothers were jointly in possession over the above mentioned, plot for 12 years.
They also had acquired varied registered title interest and possession by the right of
adverse possession.

When the zamindari system was abolished ramjanam approached the lekhpal to
settle land by the right of adverse possession. Lekhpal did not entertain the request
of ramjanam. Ramjanam keep silent for time being but remained in possession .
After the death of Ramjanam the plaintiff approached the revenue authority
promised to do some, but no order was passed in this regard.

In the first week of February 1988, the plaintiff came to know that ramji s/o
Ghanshyam managed to get an order from revenue authority by committing fraud.
By his fraudulent work he has got an order for issuance of rent receipt in the name
of his wife kalawati devi .

Due to his irregularity the plaintiff filed a suit before the revenue authority as
ascertaining their possession over the suited land and also played for the issuance.
Being satisfied revenue authority order from assessment from rent in favor of the
plaintiff and sent the record to the court of civil judge junior division, Sitapur for
further orders. The court also heard both of the parties and revised the orders which
were passed in the favor of kalavati devi by revenue authority .

Again, injury was conducted by the revenue authority in the presence of the
witness and assessment of the rent for plaintiff was ordered.

Therefore, Kalvati Devi filed a petition before the additional collector, Sitapur to
entertain the petition which stood registered as a miscellaneous petition no-
67/1998.

The Additional Collector passed an order on 28 /11/98 and set aside the entire
passed orders.The plaintiff filed a revision in the court of commissioner, Sitapur
against kalavati devi and the order of additional collector were also challenged but
during the pendency of the suit kalavati devi dies and her legal heirs did not
substitute as party in the time and the suit was abated .

Again the plaintiff filed a fresh suit in the district court Sitapur (U.P.) , after
hearing both parties the district court passed an order on 26/03/09 through which
the suit was admitted and after this the summon had been issued to the defendant .
Defendant filed the written statement. This plaintiff were strong in the matter of
oral and documentary evidences thus following issues were raised –

ISSUES RAISED
The following issues were framed by the court:

1: Whether the plaintiff has taken the suit land from the oral permission of ex-
landlord.

2: Whether the plaintiff had adverse possession over the suited land?

3: Whether the necessary ingredients for obtaining decree on the basis of adverse
rights is present in the case?

4: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for any relief in the case.

JUDGEMENT
In the above case after hearing both the parties and examining the witness and
evidences produced by both the parties, the court come to the conclusion that the
suit is dismissed on contest but without cost.

CLIENT’S INTERVIEW
I was in the interview chamber of my learned counsel Adv. Deepak Jha. The client
name came over with two other people. The persons claimed that his son was
framed wrongly and was in prison.

The dialogue between my learned counsel and the client:

Advocate: What is your name and where are you from?

Client: Sir, I’m XYZ (for privacy since the case is still subjudice) from XYZ
village of ABC district. My son has been wrongly framed by a girl on charges of
rape.

Adv: How long has he been in prison?

Client: It’s been 4 months.

Adv: But Adv. Gaurav Kr. is already working on your case?

Client: He is Sir. But I don’t think that he’s taking it seriously as he happens to
know the girl’s father as they are from the same village. He’s not making proper
efforts to procure bail for my son who has been rotting the cell for the past four
months. Had been diligent enough, my son would’ve been out by now. I’m
extremely dissatisfied with his efforts.

Adv: See, I can take up your son’s case but first of all you need to get a No
Objection certificate from Adv. Gaurav. Take a NOC form from my Munshi and
get it signed from Adv. Gaurav and file it.

Client: Okay Sir.

Adv: So tell my about the facts of the case in detail. Don’t leave out anything.
Take notes of everything carefully (to me).

Client: Sir, my son took part in election of gram Pradhan and he won it by a huge
majority. He worked hard for the welfare of the village people. This girl was our
neighbour and used to live with her father and three sisters. One of the sisters is a
divorcee, another unmarried and the last one works as a maid in rich people’s
homes. The girl in question happens to be married but she doesn’t stay at her in-
laws’ place and lives with her father and sisters. Her family has a very bad
reputation in the village and the sisters are known to be of easy virtue.
That day my son along with his younger brother and a friend went to city to get
some equipment. When he returned from the city, this girl came crying to our
house with torn clothes. She was shouting that my son and his friend had raped her
and then sold her. She ran away from the trap and made her way to the home.

Sir, if my son were that bad, people would never have chosen him as the gram
Pradhan. He is man of very good character and the entire village can vouch for
that. They filed a wrong case against him. Her father had even approached me
demanding Rs.20 lakhs for withdrawing the case. We don’t have that much money
sir. Even the police is demanding money from us. The girl was never medically
examined or anything. She has never even appeared before the court making one
excuse or another. Please help me out sir.

Adv: I will surely help you out but first of all please get the NOC from Adv.
Gaurav and then submit all your case files to my Munshi. Also provide him with
your contact number.

Client: I will get the certificate and files as soon as possible sir. Please get my son
out sir. I’ll be extremely grateful to you.

Adv.: Don’t worry. I’ll figure out how to proceed. Just get the relevant documents.
In case you need any help, contact my Munshi.

Client: Thanks a lot sir. My son is really innocent sir. Please have some mercy on
us. And if I might ask, what is your fee sir.

Adv.: You need not worry. If he’s innocent, we’ll get him out. As far as fees are
concerned, please talk with my Munshi. Thank you.