Dismissed

Ram Kesh Pandey and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC5 Jan 2018CRLR/14/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision challenging the dismissal of a discharge application in a caste atrocity case was dismissed. The court held that burning a hut where people reside constitutes destruction of a human dwelling under Section 436 IPC and charging two persons for a riot involving 15-20 others satisfies Section 147 IPC.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision filed by Ram Kesh Pandey was dismissed at the admission stage.

Ram Kesh Pandey and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 17

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 14 of 2018 Revisionist :- Ram Kesh Pandey & Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Rupak Chaubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.

¶4

This Criminal Revision has been filed against the order dated 8.12.2017 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Varanasi in Special Trial No.265 of 2015 (State vs. Ram Kesh Pandey and another) arising out of Case Crime No.07 of 2015 under Sections 147, 323, 504, 436 I.P.C., Section 3(1)X and 3(2)IV Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, P.S. Lohta, District Varanasi by which the court below has rejected the discharge application (Paper No.11-Kha) of the revisionists.

¶5

As per the FIR, the prosecution case is that on 8.1.2015 at about 11.00 A.M. revisionists along with 15 to 20 persons came on a vehicle abused the opposite party no2 and had beaten him with 'Lathi Danda'. In this occurrence Sogra Devi and Laloo received injuries and the hut of first informant was burnt. This version of the FIR has been supported by the complainant in his statement given to the police under section 161 Cr.P.C. Other witnesses have also supported this version.

¶6

Learned counsel for the revisionists contends that the ingredients of Section 436 IPC required burning of a dwelling house and the hut which is alleged to have been burnt of the revisionists may not be taken to be dwelling house and hence the charge under section 436 IPC cannot be framed against them. It is also argued that the ingredients of section 147 IPC are also not made out because the charge sheet has been filed against only two persons i.e. revisionists.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the revisionists, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶8

For the sake of convenience, Section 436 IPC is quoted as under:-

¶9

"Section 436 - Whoever commits mischief by fire or any explosive substance intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, the destruction of any building which is ordinarily used as a place of worship or as a human dwelling or as a place for the custody of property, shall be

¶10

punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."

¶11

The above definition of offence under section 436 IPC would indicate that it requires destruction of any building which is ordinarily used as a place of worship or as a human dwelling or as a place for the custody of the property. In the present case from the statement of the complainant it is apparent that he had made hut in which people were residing, hence same would be taken to be a dwelling accommodation and would fall in the category of place of human dwelling and hence it would be covered under the definition as provided under section 436 IPC.

¶12

As regards other objection that offence under section 147 IPC is not made out because of charge sheet having been submitted against only two persons, it is apparent from the record that these two persons were accompanied by 15 to 20 persons in the said occurrence. Hence, it may not be held that the offence under section 147 IPC was not made out.

¶13

The court below has clearly held that in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C, complainant, Ram Vilas Banwasi has stated in support of the prosecution version that the accused persons had beaten them with 'Ladhi Danda' and they had also burnt their huts. Other witness Thaggu Banwasi has also stated in examination chief that the huts were burnt and the victims were residing in the huts. It is also recorded in the order that the Investigating Officer has found at the time of making spot inspection that the residential huts were burnt down and he has shown in the site plan burning down the huts.

¶14

At the stage of framing of charge only it is to be seen as to whether there is sufficient evidence on record to make out prima-facie case of the sections for which the charge is being framed. It is not to be seen that there was enough evidence on record for ultimate conviction under the sections, of which charges are framed.

¶15

In view of the above, the court below also found that there was sufficient evidence on record to constitute the offence under section 436 IPC.

¶16

In view of the above discussions, there does not seem any infirmity in the impugned order. The revision deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage itself.

¶17

Order Date :- 5.1.2018/AU

Ram Kesh Pandey and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Kesh Pandey and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ayazuddin Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rustam Ansari and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashish Kumar Yadav and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Atar Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Tarun Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Priyanka Gupta and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another