Partly allowed

Ranu Tiwari @ Devendra v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC24 Aug 2023CRLA/4018/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged the order framing charges under Sections 307 IPC and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act as unsupported by FIR evidence. The court set aside the charges under 307 IPC and 3(2)(va) but upheld the framing of charges under other IPC sections and directed the trial court to formally frame the charges before proceeding with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Order framing charges under Sections 307 IPC and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act set aside. Charges under Sections 323/34, 504, and 506 IPC confirmed. Trial court directed to frame charges before proceeding.

Ranu Tiwari @ Devendra Vs State of U.P… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:170710

¶2

Court No. - 84

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4018 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Ranu Tiwari @ Devendra Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Swetashwa Agarwal,Vipul Dube Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶7

No one has put in appearance for opposite party no. 2 despite of sufficient service.

¶8

This is an appeal filed under Section 14-A(1) SC/ST Act against the order dated 06.02.2019 passed by the second Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Allahabad in Special Sessions Trial No. 90 of 2018 (State Vs. Ranu Tiwari and another) arising out of Case Crime No. 683 of 2017, Police Station Naini, District Allahabad.

¶9

By the impugned order the trial court ordered to frame charges against the accused persons under Sections 323/34, 504 & 506 IPC and against the present appellant specific order was made to frame charges under Sections 307 IPC and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act.

¶10

It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that from perusal of the FIR on the allegations made therein no ingredient of Section 307 IPC exist. The charge under Section 3(2) (va) of SC/ST Act also cannot be said to be made out against the appellant because there is no version of the first informant that caste based words were used with intent to humiliate the opposite party no. 2 because of his being a member of SC/ST community.

¶11

It is further argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that in the order itself it has been mentioned by the court concerned that the charge was framed against the accused persons. It was read over and explained to them. The charge was denied by the accused persons and they pleaded to be tried. But no such charge was ever framed by the court and the case has been fixed for evidence. It is argued that this is procedural mistake and without framing charge

¶12

the case cannot be fixed for evidence.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer. However, he admitted the fact that as per FIR there is no ground to frame the charge under Section 307 IPC.

¶14

The argument of learned counsel for the appellant that without framing charge the case cannot be fixed for evidence, is correct. Though, the trial court has mentioned that the charge was framed and read over to the accused persons, which was denied by them and they pleaded not guilty but in the opinion of the court, framing of charge has been left by mistake of the trial court, which can be framed now, as admittedly, not even a single statement has not been recorded by the trial court till date.

¶15

So far as the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the charge under Section 307 IPC and 3(2) (va) of SC/ST Act cannot be said to be made out against the appellant is concerned, from the perusal of the FIR there is allegation of thrashing, using caste based words, hurling abuses and giving threat of burning alive the first informant. There is the version that the accused persons fled away making fire. Here, there is only allegation of making fire and it is nowhere mentioned in the FIR that this firing was done aiming any specific person with the intention of causing injury or death of any person. The injury report of the first informant is appended with the paper book; wherein only complaint of pain in right side abdomen of the first informant is mentioned. That pain too is shown about three days old. The medical is shown to be done on 20.08.2017. The incident, as per FIR, is dated 18.08.2017. The pain in abdomen, which is shown to be three days old cannot be related to the present incident. Otherwise also, this pain in abdomen cannot be said to be basis of framing charge under Section 307 IPC. In the opinion of the court, there is no ingredients of Section 307 IPC for framing charge against the appellant in the FIR.

¶16

So far as Section 3(2) (va) of SC/ST Act is concerned, in the FIR the specific caste based words alleged to have been hurled by the appellants have not been mentioned. Otherwise also, as per Section 3(2) (va) of SC/ST Act, the commission of offence must be against a person knowing that such person is a member of SC/ST Act but in the present FIR there is no where mentioned that this incident has been committed by the appellant knowing and because of being the opposite party no. 2 a SC/ST person. In the opinion of the court, the order of framing charge under Sections 307 IPC and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act is against the evidence on

¶17

record.

¶18

So for as the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that without framing charge case cannot be fixed for evidence is concerned, from the impugned order dated 06.02.2019 it appears that the charge was framed by the trial court under above mentioned sections against the accused persons but as per learned counsel for the appellant no charge was ever framed against any of the accused persons in compliance of order dated 06.02.2019. The court concerned has not sent any report regarding the fact that whether any formal charge in compliance of order dated 06.02.2019 was framed or not?

¶19

Hence, the appeal is partly allowed. It is allowed with regard to order of framing charge under Sections 307 IPC and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act. The order dated 06.02.2019 taking cognizance under Sections 307 IPC and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act against the appellant is set aside. The appeal is dismissed with regard to framing of charge under Sections 323/34, 504 and 506 IPC. The cognizance under Sections 323/34, 504 and 506 IPC is hereby confirmed.

¶20

If the trial court finds that in compliance of order dated 06.02.2019 no formal charge was framed against the accused persons, the trial court is directed to frame the charge and then only proceed with the case.

¶21

Order Date :- 24.8.2023 gp

¶22

Digitally signed by :- GANESH PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ranu Tiwari @ Devendra v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranu Tiwari @ Devendra 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

Sanni Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pardeshiya @ Pardesilal and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Monu @ Shivendra Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Kallu Bade @ Pradeep Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another