Disposed

Ravindra Sardar and 2 Others v. State of U.P.and Another

Allahabad HC19 May 2023CRLA/3263/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Appeal against a summoning order under the SC/ST Act. The Special Court refused to quash the summoning order, noting that medical evidence is not conclusive against oral testimony. The appeal was disposed of with directions for expeditious bail consideration if appellants appear.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed; appellants directed to appear within 30 days so bail applications may be considered and disposed of expeditiously.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:110202

¶2

Court No. - 81

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3263 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Ravindra Sardar And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Manoj Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

As per the report of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amroha of date 29.04.2023, the opposite party no.2 has been sufficiently/personally served. However, he is not represented.

¶7

Heard Shri Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The instant appeal under Section 14-A(1) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, has been filed by the appellants- Ravindra Sardar, Kamal and Vinod with the prayer to allow the present appeal and set-aside the summoning order dated 30.01.2023 passed by learned Additional District and Session Judge/Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Amroha, under Sections 3(2)(va), 3(1) (Da), 3(1)(Dha) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Naugawan Sadat, District Amroha.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellants while drawing the attention of this Court towards the impugned order of date 30.01.2023, vehemently submits that the Special Court has committed manifest illegality in passing the impugned order and summoned the appellants to face trial with regard to the offences, which have never been committed by them.

¶10

It is also submitted that the Special Court has not taken into cognizance the fact that after full-fledged investigation, a 'final report/closure report' was submitted by the investigating officer and on a protest petition filed by the opposite party no.2, the same was treated as complaint and, thus, the conclusions arrived at by the investigating officer and the material collected during the course of investigation should not be ignored and, thus, it was obligatory on the part of the Special Court to have appreciated the allegations, as contained in the protest petition on the touchstone of probability and it would emerge by the plain reading of the complaint and the injury report pertaining to injury allegedly sustained by the opposite party no.2 that the

¶11

same can never be inflicted in the manner alleged by the complainant/injured. Thus, the summoning order is bad and is liable to be set-aside.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that the allegations of assault has been levelled against the appellants in the F.I.R. as well as in the protest petition, which has been treated as complaint and since the Special Court has taken cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) of the Cr.P.C., the conclusions arrived at by the investigating officer are immaterial and has been rightly ignored by the Special Court.

¶13

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that in the protest petition, which has been treated as complaint by the Special Court, allegations of physical assault by 'lathi-danda' has been assigned to all the appellants/accused persons. The opposite party no.2/complainant/injured has sustained injuries. One of the injury has been noticed by the doctor in the injury report, wherein one of the tooth of the opposite party no.2 was found missing and at the time of his medical examination, fresh blood was seen 'oozing' from the wound and the inner part of the lip was also found ruptured.

¶14

Much emphasis has been given by learned counsel for the appellants on the statement of the doctor recorded by the investigating officer to the tune that the injury of dislocation of tooth may not be suffered in the manner alleged by the complainant.

¶15

Suffice is to say that the opinion of the doctor or any expert is only relevant under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act and the same may never be conclusive and 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.

¶16

The relevant paragraph of the report of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is reproduced as under:

¶17

"The conflict between oral testimony and medical evidence ca n be of varied dimensions and shapes. There may be a case where there is total absence of injuries which are normally caused by a particular weapon. There is another category where though the injuries found on the victim are of the type which are possible by the weapon of assault, but the size and dimension of the injuries do not exactly tally with the size and dimension of the weapon. The third category can be where the injuries found on the victim are such which are normally caused by the

¶18

weapon of assault but they are not found on that portion of the body where they are deposed to have been caused by the eyewitnesses. The same kind of inference cannot be drawn in the three categories of apparent conflict in oral and medical evidence enumerated above. In the first category it may legitimately be inferred that the oral evidence regarding assault having been made from a particular weapon is not truthful. However, in the second and third category no such inference can straightway be drawn. The manner and method of assault, the position of the victim, the resistance offered by him, the opportunity available to the witnesses to see the occurrence like their distance, presence of light and many other similar factors will have to be taken into consideration in judging the reliability of ocular testimony."

¶19

Thus, having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available against the appellants/accused persons, I do not find any illegality so far as the impugned order is concerned. Thus, the prayer with regard to the quashing of the summoning order is hereby refused.

¶20

It is vehemently submitted at this stage by learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants are ready to participate in the trial by appearing before the trial Court and a suitable direction in this regard be given for expeditious disposal of their bail applications in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and others : (2021) 10 SCC 773 and Aman Preet Singh Vs. C.B.I. through Director : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 941.

¶21

No objection in this regard has been raised by learned A.G.A., as it is otherwise the duty of the trial Court to follow the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil (supra) and Aman Preet Singh (supra) and to dispose of the bail applications of the under trials and convicts with utmost expedition.

¶22

Thus, the appeal preferred by the appellants- Ravindra Sardar, Kamal and Vinod is finally disposed of with the direction to the trial Court that if the appellants appear/surrender before the trial Court/Special Court within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously by the Court below strictly in accordance with the law referred to herein above.

¶23

Order Date :- 19.5.2023 Praveen

¶24

Digitally signed by :- PRAVEEN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ravindra Sardar and 2 Others v. State of U.P.and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravindra Sardar 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

Smt. Minakshi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Peer Mohammad @ Peeru and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Parmatma Yadav @ Parmatma Ram Harakh Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Hari Shankar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ankit Agrahari and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Madhav Singh Rajput and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another