Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 88447 (ALL)

SHIVDHAKAD TIWARI ALIAS SUDHAKAR TIWARI v. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

NA528/31242/2025 · 2025-08-22

Vikram D Chauhan

Civil Appealbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:145578 Court No. - 76 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 31242 of 2025 Applicant :- Shivdhakad Tiwari Alias Sudhakar Tiwari Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Harish Chandra Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State. 2. The present application has been filed by applicant for quashing the order dated 19.04.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, (F.T.C.) (C.A.W.), District - Sonbhadra in application 12B filed in Sessions Trial No.879/2022 (State of U.P. Versus Shubham Tripathi and others) under Sections 498-A, 304B I.P.C., and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. -Obra, District - Sonbhadra and learned court below may be directed to send second sample of Viscera for chemical examination to any Central Laboratory of forensic since in pursuance application 12B filed by applicant in Sessions Trial No.879/2022 (State of U.P. Versus Shubham Tripathi and others) under Sections 498-A, 304B I.P.C., and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S.Obra, District - Sonbhadra, pending before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, (F.T.C.) (C.A.W.), District - Sonbhadra. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for applicant that application of accused for sending second sample of viscera for examination has been rejected by the impugned order. Learned counsel for applicant submits that there is some discrepancy in the viscera report and as such, second sample is required to be examined. 4. On a query being made to learned counsel for applicant as to what is the basis for the allegation that the first sample was not properly examined, learned counsel for applicant could not demonstrate from the record any such discrepancy. 5. It is to be seen that it is for the prosecution to prove the viscera report and applicant-accused would be at liberty to cross examine the expert evidence before the trial court. 6. At this stage, this Court does not find any error in the impugned order. 7. Accordingly, the application U/s 528 BNSS is dismissed. Order Date :- 23.8.2025 D. Tamang Digitally signed by :- DHIRENDRA TAMANG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad