Dismissed

Lalsa Rajbhar and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC1 May 2023CRLA/339/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal under the SC/ST Act, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the petition against a summoning order. The bench held that the charge sheet disclosed prima facie offences and medical evidence did not eclipse the prosecution story. Appellants were directed to apply for bail within 10 days.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; no elaborate reasoning is required for summoning; appellants directed to file bail applications within 10 days.

Lalsa Rajbhar and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 81

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 339 of 2023

¶3

Appellant :- Lalsa Rajbhar And 5 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Rajesh Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Vinod Kumar Yadav

¶4

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Rajesh Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Vinod Kumar Yadav, learned cousnel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The instant appeal under Section 14-A (1) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed by the appellants, Lalsa Rajbhar, Ram Bhavan Rajbhar, Somari Devi, Umesh Rajbhar, Sanju Rajbhar and Manju Rajbhar with the prayer to allow this appeal and set aside the order dated 19.10.2022 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act, Azamgarh in Special Session Case No. 281 of 2022 taking cognizance on the charge sheet submitted against the appellants in Case Crime No. 227 of 2022 registered at Police Station Mubarakpur, District Azamgarh and summoning the appellants under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 506, 452 IPC and 3(1) (d), 3(1) (e) and 3(2) (Va) SC/ST Act, as well as to quash the criminal proceeding against the appellants as Special Sessions Case No. 281 of 2022, pending before the Special Judge SC/ST Act, Azamgarh.

¶7

Learned counsel for the appellants has raised various submissions in order to project that the FIR lodged in the instant case is nothing but the counter blast of a civil case instituted by the father of the appellant no.1 against some other persons wherein the husband of the first informant of the opposite party no.2, namely, Jokhu Ram had moved an application for impleadment.

¶8

It is further submitted that in the first information report specific averments has been made that the informant/ injured has sustained injury on her leg while the injury report placed at page no. 53 of the paper book would reveal that no such injury has been sustained by the informant/ injured- Bhanmati. Thus the medical evidence and the oral evidence is in contradiction and special court has failed to take into consideration this aspect of the matter and thus, summoning order is patently illegal is liable to be set aside.

¶9

Learned AGA on the other hand submits that at the time of summoning that too on the basis of the charge sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer, giving of elaborate reasoning is not required. The case of the prosecution is prima facie disclosing the commission of cognizable offences which are also fortified by the injuries sustained by two injured persons Bhanmati and Jokhu Ram, thus there is no illegality in the order passed by the special court.

¶10

Learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2 also opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellants and submits that there is no illegality in the order passed by the special court.

¶11

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is transpired that in the First Information Report the allegations have been levelled against the appellants with regard to the physical assault given to the informant and her husband. The informant and her husband have prima facie sufferred injuries on their person as is evident by the extract of injury reports placed on record by the appellants at page nos. 53 and 54 of the paper book. It is also evident that some of the injuries of the informant/ injured Bhanmati as well as of Jokhu Ram were kept under observation and were also advised x-ray, however, no abnormality has been deducted in the x-ray report.

¶12

So far as summoning done on the basis of charge sheet is only a prima facie case is required to be seen for the purpose of summoning and no elaborate reasoning is required in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Gujrat Vs Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta reported in MANU/SC/0139/2019 .

¶13

It is also well settled that in case of contradiction in the ocular version of the incident and medical evidence, the medical evidence could only prevail, over the oral evidence when it is completely eclipsing the whole prosecution story 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 referred. Thus having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances of the case it is not a case where any interference is required. Thus the appeal filed by the appellants appears to be without merit and the same is dismissed as such.

¶14

However, mere dismissal of the appeal filed by the appellants shall not preclude them from appearing before the trial court immediately to say within 10 days from today and if the

¶15

appellants appear/ surrender before the trial court within 10 days from today, no need to say that the trial court would be under an obligation to dispose of their bail applications with utmost expedition in view of the settled law.

¶16

Order Date :- 1.5.2023 Muk

¶17

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

Lalsa Rajbhar and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalsa Rajbhar and 5 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. Rani and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anuj Jain Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Geeta Devi and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Prem Babu Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 Others

Balkeshwar Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Man Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another