Dismissed

Santosh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Ors.

Allahabad HC14 Jul 2022A378/301/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal against the orders of the Sessions Court in a case involving allegations of caste atrocity under the S.C./S.T. Act and offences under the IPC. The Court held that the charges under the S.C./S.T. Act were not proved and affirmed the trial court's decision to acquit the accused on that count while upholding convictions for IPC offences, dismissing the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The application filing a bailable warrant was allowed ordering cancellation, but the main Criminal Appeal was dismissed upholding the trial court's acquittal on S.C./S.T. Act charges and conviction on

Santosh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Ors. — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 10

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 378 No. - 301 of 2017

¶3

Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Ors. Counsel for Applicant :- Sooraj Lal Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Order on C.M.Application No. 01 of 2022

¶6

Application is allowed.

¶7

The order dated 11-05-2022 is hereby recalled. The order of issuing bailable warrant against the appellant is cancelled.

¶8

Order on Appeal

¶9

Heard Sri Sooraj Lal, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Rao Narendra Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent.

¶10

Present Appeal has been filed under section 378 Cr.P.C. by the appellant feeling aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 08-06-2017 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Gonda in Sessions Trial No. 20 of 2012(State Vs Vinod Kumar & Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 294 of 2011, under section 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(X) of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Act, Police Station-Dhaneypur, district-Gonda.

¶11

Learned trial court after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence on record has acquitted the accused-respondents for offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the S.C./S.T. Act and convicted for the offences under Sections

¶12

323/34 and 504 IPC..

¶13

The prosecution case in brief is that F.I.R. at Case Crime No. 294 of 2011 came to be registered on a complaint of the appellant alleging that on 01-07-2011 at around 06.00 P.M., he was coming back to his house from Babaganj Market. On the way, the accused-respondents, who were on a motorcycle alongwith other accuused persons started assaulting the complainant. It is further said that one another accused namely Vijay Kant Singh @ Jwala Singh came with Lathi and Danda and absued the appellant by his caste. The appellant however, could escape himself from the place of incident. Thereafter, he came to the police station and on the next day i.e. 02-07-2011, he lodged an F.I.R., which was got registted at Case Crime No. 294 of 2011, under sections 323,504,506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(X) of the S.C./S.T. Act.

¶14

The Investigating OfÏcer after investigating the offence filed chargesheet against four accused persons namely Vinod Singh,Raj Kumar Mishra @ Goge, Lalmani Goswami and Vijay Kant Singh @ Jwala Singh under sections 323/34,504,506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(X) of the S.C./S.T. Act. To support the prosecution case, four witnesses were examined. The victim/appellant, Santosh was examined as P.W.-1. Sitaram, P.W.-2 was examined as alleged eye witness of the incident. Mangre, P.W.-3 was also examined as an eye witness. Fourth witness, Dr. Mohar Gohar, was examined as

¶15

P.W.-4, who cooked the injury report.

¶16

P.W.-1, Sitaram in his statement reiterated the prosecution case as per the allegations in the F.I.R. P.W.-2 in his statement stated that the incident took place four years before the date of his examination in the court, and it was a rainy month. The incident took place around 6.00-7.00 P.M. He said that he went to Babaganj Market to buy vegetables, and when he was coming back from Babaganj Market and reached the crossing at Chidiapur, he heard commotion near the crossing. He went there and found the accused persons namely Goge @ Raj Kumar Mishra, Vinod, Lalmani riding on a motorcycle. These persons pushed the complainant/appellant. They assaulted the complainant/appellant and also pushed Ashok Kumar. He further said that they pushed Santosh Kumar. Again he said that three persons started assaulting Santosh Kumar, present appellant by fists and Lathi. They also used his caste in their absuses.

¶17

P.W.-3, Mangre, in his statement said that the incident took place more than five years from the date of his examination. It was the month of July and at around 6-7 P.M., the incident took place. He said that when he was coming from Babaganj Market to his house, he found the accused persons namely Vinod Singh, Raj Kumar, Lalmani and Vijaykant Singh @ Jwala Singh, assaulting the complainant/appellant by kicks and fists. They were exhorting to kill him. It was further sid that

¶18

besides him, there were other persons namely Ashok, Nanke and Sitaram. They anyhow could save the complainant.

¶19

P.W.-4, Dr. Mohd. Gohar, who examined the victim/complainant, cooked the injury report. The injury report of the victim/complainant would suggest the following injuries :-

¶20

1. The complainat of pain on face.

¶21

2. Scratch on the right side of the face 3 c.m. below and one and ½ c.m.

¶22

3. Black scratch on right eye side 2.5 c.m. below, size 3 c.m. x 1.5 c.m.

¶23

4. Complaint of pain on the buttack.

¶24

5. Scratch on stomach 14 right nipple size 14 c.m. below, size 5 c.m. and half c.m.

¶25

6. Complaint of pain on right thumb.

¶26

7. Complaint of pain on right knee

¶27

It was opined that all the injuries were simple in nature caused by some hardened blunt object. In his Examination-in-Chief, he also said that the injuries caused to the victim could have been caused by Lathi.

¶28

After the prosecution witnesses/evidence got concluded, the statements of the accused persons were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C, who denied the incident and said that they were falsely implicated in the case because of enemity and they were innocent.

¶29

In their defence, the accused produced a letter dated 22-05-2011, which was written to Sub.

¶30

Divisional Magistrate, Gonda Sadar. The trial court held that the it was of the opinion that the incident took place on 01-07-2016 at around 06.00 p.m., but, the F.I.R. of the incident was lodged on the next day i.e. on 02-07-2016 at about 11.40 hours. However, the distance from the place of incident to the police station was 8 K.M. The prosecution did not come forward with any explanation in respect of the delay in lodging the F.I.R. It was further said that no witness was named in the F.I.R.

¶31

The defence also said that at that time, the local M.L.A. was Ramesh Sharma from the Bahujan Samaj Party and the F.I.R. came to be registered because of his influence. The four injuries were found on the body of the victim, which were regarding pain and the other injuries were minor abrasions. P.W.-2 in his statement said that the blood was oozing from the body of the complainant, however, the doctor did not notice any blood coming out from the body of the victim.

¶32

The Trial Court after considering the evidence led by the parties found that the charges for offence under sections 323/34 & 504 I.P.C were proved against the accused. However, the charges for the offence under section 3(1)(x) of the S.C./S.T. was not found proved.The accused were given benefit of doubt for the charge of offence under section 506 I.P.C. as well as section 3(1)(X) of the S.C./S.T. Act. The accused have been given the benefit of first offender and they have been directed to submit their personal bonds and two

¶33

sureties for their good behaviour for two months.

¶34

This court has considered the evidence on record and submissions of learned counsel for the appellant.This court does not find that learned trial court has comitted any error.

¶35

This court after considering the evidence on record, find that the charges for the offence under section 3(1)(x) of the S.C./S.T. have not been proved and there is no reason for this court to take a different view than that has been taken by the trial court

¶36

Considering the injuries which are only abrsaionans and complaint of pain, learned trial court has given benefit of doubt to the accused persons and this court does not find that the trial court has committed any error of law or jurisidiction in giving benefit of doubt for the offence under sections 506 I.P.C. and section 3(1) (X) of the S.C./S.T. Act. This was the first offence of the accused respondents.

¶37

In view thereof, there is no ground to interfere with the impugned Jugment and order 08-06-2017 passed by the learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Acat, Gonda in Sessions Trial No. 20 of 2012.

¶38

The Appeal is dismissed.

¶39

Order Date :- 14.7.2022 AKS

¶40

Digitally signed by ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.07.15 09:34:37 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Santosh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Ors.

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

Mushtaque Ali Vs State of U.P. and Ors.

Dr. Hargovind Bhargava and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P.

Rafiq Ahamad Vs State of U.P.Thru.Addl.Chief Secy.Home and Others

Surendra Vikram Singh @ Punjabi Singh and Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Ishwar Chandra Agarwal Ishwar Chandra Agarwal @ Babia Agarw Vs the State of U.P Thru C.B.I and Anr.

Vipin Kumar Dixit @ Chhotu (Second Bail) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others