Dismissed

Ram Sewak Rathore and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC15 Oct 2019CRLA/6237/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal against the rejection of a discharge application in a malicious injury case alleging caste abuse. The court held that evidence was insufficient at that stage to presume self-infliction of injuries and found the lower court's order well-reasoned.

What did the court decide?

appeal dismissed; liberty to apply for bail considered expeditiously on surrender.

Ram Sewak Rathore and Another Vs State of U.P… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6237 of 2019

¶3

Appellant :- Ram Sewak Rathore And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Gopal Das Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 17.09.2019 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Auraiya, by which the application for discharge has been rejected by the court below.

¶7

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the prosecution initiated against the appellants is wholly malicious and injuries found on the person of the victim are superficial and self-inflicted.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that as per the allegations made in the complaint, no offence is made out against the appellants.

¶9

Per contra, learned AGA has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the complaint and the statements of the victim and the witnesses recorded under Sections 200 CrPC and 202 CrPC, prima facie offence is clearly disclosed against the appellants. The specific allegation of abusing the victim with the name of her caste with an intention to humiliate and intimidate him in public view has also made against the appellants and on being asked to refrain from carrying out their illegal act, the appellants assaulted the victim Sarojni Devi by lathi, danda, kicks and fists, due to which, she suffered injuries on her person and has been medically examined. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, impugned order passed by the court below is just, proper and legal and do not call for any interference by this Court.

¶10

Having considered rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and taking consideration of specific allegation made in the complaint regarding assault of victim by lathi, danda, kicks and fists and abusing her with the name of her caste with an intention to humiliate and intimidate her in public view coupled with the fact that the victim has also suffered injuries. At this stage, when the evidence is yet to come, it cannot be said that the injuries found on the person of the victim are selfinflicted and manipulated. The court below while passing the impugned order has considered each and every aspect of the matter and has passed well reasoned order and do not call for any interference by this

¶11

Court.

¶12

It is also to be noted that at the stage of discharge the court has to consider the material only with a view to find out if there is a ground for 'presuming' that the accused had committed the offence :

¶13

"It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence or offences. For this limited purpose, the court may sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at the initial stage to accept as gospel truth all that the prosecution states. At this stage, the court has to consider the material only with a view to find out if there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence and not for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion that it is not likely to lead to a conviction."

¶14

"Section 227 itself contains enough guidelines as to the scope of enquiry for the purpose of discharging an accused. It provides that the judge shall discharge when he considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The ground in the context is not a ground for conviction, but a ground for putting the accused on trial. It is in the trial, the guilt or the innocence of the accused will be determined and not at the time of framing of charge. The court, therefore, need not undertake an elaborate enquiry in sifting and weighing the material. Nor is it necessary to delve deep into various aspects. All that the court has to consider is whether the evidentiary material on record. If generally accepted, would reasonably connect the accused with the crime."

¶15

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer for quashing the impugned order is rejected. This criminal appeal lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed.

¶16

However, it is directed that if the appellants appear/surrender before the court below and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided as expeditiously as possible after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties.

¶17

Order Date :- 15.10.2019 Nadim

Ram Sewak Rathore and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Sewak Rathore 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

Jagan Vs State of U.P.

Lav Kush Vs State of U.P. and Another

Atul Tiwari and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pala and Others Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Kuraisha Begam and 5 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Ayodhya Prajapati Vs State of U.P. and Another