Dismissed

Ajay Maurya and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC12 May 2023CRLA/1795/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the appeal against the summoning order. The Court held that the preliminary evidence, including the complaint, witness statements, and injury report, established a prima facie case attracting the SC/ST Act and IPC sections mentioned, rejecting arguments regarding the applicability of SC/ST provisions.

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeal was dismissed, upholding the impugned summoning order.

Ajay Maurya and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:103119

¶2

Court No. - 81

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1795 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Ajay Maurya And 2 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Rajendra Singh,Sarvagya Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ganesh Shanker Srivastava,Ravi Shankar Kanojiya

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

Heard Dr. S.B. Singh holding brief for Shri Sarvagya Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Ravi Shankar Kanojiya, learned cousnel for respondent no.2 as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The instant appeal under Section 14-A(1) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellants, namely, Ajay Maurya, Anil Kumar Maurya and Subhash Maurya with the prayer to quash/ set aside the impugned summoning order dated 18.11.2022 passed by Special Judge, (SC/ST Act), Varanasi in Complaint Case No. 1335 of 2022 (Reena Kannaujiya Vs. Ajay Maurya and others), under Sections 452, 323, 354-Ka, 504, 506 IPC and under Sections 3(1) (r), 3(1) (s) and 3(2) (5a) SC/ST Act.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellants while drawing the attention of this Court towards the summoning order and the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and of her witnesses recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. as well as the injury report pertaining to the complainant, vehemently submits that at first the injuries allegedly sustained by the complainant are not comensurate with the manner in which the incident is shown to have occurred as the complainant admittedly had not sustained any injury which may be attributed to the knife while the assault is shown to have been committed on the complainant with the knife also.

¶9

While relying on the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hitesh Verma Vs.The Stateof Uttarakhand and others MANU/SC/0843/2020 and Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 27.4.2015 passed in application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 7637 of 2015 it is vehemently submitted that it is not so that if the accused persons and the complainant/ victim belongs to the different caste the penal provision of

¶10

SC/ST would come into the play automatically and to attract these provisions it is mandatory on the part of the prosecution to place the material on the basis of which it may be inferred that the alleged offence of the SC/ST Act has been committed with an intention to demean the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe as the case may be. Reliance has been placed in para 22 of Hitesh Verma (supra) .

¶11

It is also submitted that there are material contradictions in the statement of the complainant and her witnesses and in nutshell the story as cooked up by the complainant is highly improbable and the trial court has committed manifest illegality in summoning the appellant for those offences which have never been committed by the appellants and the summoning order is bad in law and is liable to be set aside.

¶12

Shri Ravi Shankar Kanojiya, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 vehemently opposes the submissions of learned cousnel for the appellants and submits that this is not the solitary incident committed by the appellants and in the past also they have committed assault pertaining to which an FIR was lodged and injuries were also sustained by the complainant.

¶13

It is also submitted that at the stage of summoning only prima facie case is required to be seen as the meticulous exercise of appreciating evidence is not warranted as is required at the time of culmination of the trial.

¶14

Learned AGA has also supported the impugned judgment.

¶15

Having heard learned cousnel for the parties and having perused the record, it is transpired that the complaint has been filed by the opposite party no.2 against the appellants interalia alleging that on 23.7.2022 at about 9.00 a.m. the appellants had entered into the house of the complainant and dragged her out of house by dragging her by hair and also torn up her clothes and further intimidated her that they will not allow her to reside there and also addressed her with castiest remarks and also threatened her and her sister to outrage their modesty. Along with complaint an injury report pertaining to the complainant has also been placed before the special court wherein 5 injuries is shown to have been sustained by the complainant. The statement of the complainant recorded before the trial court is in corroboration with the incident shown in the complaint. Similar is the statement of the witnesses of the complainant whose statements have been recorded under Section 202 Cr.PC. The complainant as well as her witnesses in so many terms have stated about the incident specifically mentioning that the complainant was dragged out of her house and her

¶16

clothes were torn and she was addressed with castiest remarks and was also intimidated. Thus in the considered opinion of this Court the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and of her witnesses, namely, Nisha Kanaujia, Madhuri Maurya and Jitendra Kumar as P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 respectively, prima faice attracts the offences wherein the appellants have been summoned by the trial court to face trial. The injury report pertinent to the complainant also corroborates these statements.

¶17

Coming to the submissions of learned cousnel for the appellants pertaining to non applicability of the relevant provisions of SC/ST Act in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court discussed above, suffice is to say that each and every criminal case is having its own tenor and texture and factual matrix of each and every case is to be seen for the applicability of any ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court or by this Court. The only requirement which is required for the applicability of the penal provisions pertaining to SC/ST Act appears to be that the offence has been committed with the required intention of insulting and intimidating the victim on the basis of he/ she belongs to the SC/ST category. The alleged acts which have been attributed to the appellants, in the considered opinion of this Court are sufficient enough to draw presence of required intention. This court is deliberately not going in depth of the manner, as only a prima facie case is required to be seen at this stage and further factual deliberation may derail the trial either in favour or against any of the litigating party.

¶18

Suffice is to say that prima facie offences wherein the appellants have been summoned are existing in this case, after all a criminal trial is a journey to unearth the truth as to what had occurred at the relevant day and time and a mini trial must not be held within the trial and many submissions which have been raised by learned cousnel for the appellants may be left for the trial court to deliberate in the trial which is yet to follow. So far as contradictions between the oral and medical evidence is concerned, in this regard the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Thaman Kumar Vs. State of Union Territory of Chandigarh. (2003)6 SCC 380 may be recalled where in it is opined that the oral evidence can only be doubted if it is specifically demolishing the whole of the case of the prosecution and by a slight difference in medical or oral evidence the prosecution may not be culminated at the threshold.

¶19

Thus for the reasons given herein before, I do not find any illegality in the impugned summoning order in result, the appeal

¶20

appears to be devoid of merits and is dismissed , as such. Order Date :- 12.5.2023 Muk

¶21

Digitally signed by :- MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ajay Maurya and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Maurya and 2 Others 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mannan Khan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bitti Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Santosh Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Santram Maurya and Another Vs State of U.P.and Another

Geeta Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shashank Shekhar Tiwari and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another