Dismissed

Pradeep Kumar @ Pappu v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC5 Feb 2021CRLA/305/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal, the appellant challenged an order of acquittal passed by the Special Judge under the SC/ST Act and IPC. The single-judge bench observed that the trial court’s findings were based on cogent evidence and were not perverse. The appeal was dismissed without any compelling reason to disturb the acquittal.

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeal under Section 14A(1) of the SC/ST Act was dismissed.

Pradeep Kumar @ Pappu Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 90

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 305 of 2021

¶3

Appellant :- Pradeep Kumar @ Pappu Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Bipin Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record at the admission stage.

¶6

This criminal appeal under Section 14 A(1) of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed challenging the order dated 19.12.2020 passed by learned Special Judge (ST/ST) Act, Chandauli in S.S.T. No. 178 of 2017 (State vs. Vijay Chauhan and others), arising out of Case Crime no. 187 of 2017, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and section 3(1)(Da) of SC/ST Act, by which the accused/opposite party nos. 2 to 4 were acquitted by the trial court.

¶7

As per prosecution case, on 24.3.2017 at about 9:00 p.m., Vijay Kumar son of Sarju Prasad, Deepak Chauhan son of Surendra, Surendra Chauhan son of Sarju Chauhan, residents of the village of the appellant-informant invited the appellant for dinner at Dulhipur near VP High School. To attend the said dinner, the appellant reached there and the accused persons were talking about election. Due to the political rivalry all the accused persons started assaulting the appellant with bricks, stone, kicks and fists, as as result of which the appellant sustained various injuries on his body. On hearing the alarm being raised by the appellant for help, Babloo Kumar son of Om Prakash and Prem Chand Munshi, son of Kanta Prasad, residents of village-Jaleelpur, Police Station - Mughalsarain, District-Chandauli and various other persons saved him. Abuses were hurled to the appellant in caste related words "Gond, Ganwar Tumko Jan Se Mar Denge" and threatening all to kill the appellant was also given by the accused persons while running away from the spot.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellant-informant has submitted that the incident had taken place on 24.3.2017. When the matter was investigated the concern Tehsildar has submitted its report dated 15.6.2017, mentioning that the appellant belongs to Scheduled Caste category. Further submission is that learned trial court while ignoring the facts and material available on record, wrongly and illegally acquitted the accused persons merely on

¶9

the basis of mere conjuncture and surmises.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that order of acquittal is based on evidence and no interference in the said order is required.

¶11

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant and perused the impugned judgment as well as the record of the lower court. Findings recorded by the learned trial Judge in the impugned judgment are based upon evidence. Cogent reasons have been given by him for disbelieving the witnesses of fact examined on behalf of the prosecution, which have not been shown to be untenable.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the impugned order suffers from any illegality, infirmity or perversity, requiring any interference by this Court. I do not find any compelling reason to upset the acquittal recorded by the trial court in the impugned judgment after a thorough marshaling of the facts of the case and a microscopic scrutiny of the evidence on record, oral as well as documentary.

¶13

The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

¶14

Order Date :- 5.2.2021 Faridul

Pradeep Kumar @ Pappu v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Kumar @ Pappu v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Sri Kant Bajpai Vs State

Kamlesh @ Nathai Vs State of U.P.

Kisan Singh @ Krishna Vs State of U.P.

Ajay@ Bedi Vs State of U.P.

Azad Ansari Vs State of U.P.

Samatullah Vs State