A Criminal Appeal filed under Section 14-A of the SC/ST Act challenging the Special Judge's rejection of a protest petition. The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial court's refusal to summon the accused due to lack of sufficient evidence.
Criminal Appeal dismissed; order of trial court dated 13.07.2021 affirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:170141
Court No. - 84
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5922 of 2021 Appellant :- Smt. Priti Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Jeetendra Kumar Sharma,Laxmi Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the opposite party no.2.
This appeal has been filed under Section 14-A(1) of SC/ST Act, 1989 against the judgment and order dated 13.07.2021 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Auraiya in Final Report No. 14 of 2019 ( Smt. Priti Vs. Pappu) arising out of Case Crime No. 373 of 2017, under Sections 323, 354, 452, 504 and 506 I.P.C., and 3(2) (V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Dibiyapur, District Auraiya by which the learned Judge rejected the protest petition filed by the appellant.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the trial court did not consider her medical report, her statement and the statement of other witnesses available on record.
Learned A.G.A. however, opposed the prayer and submitted that an application under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. was moved by the appellant after about nine months of the incident. None of the witnesses have supported the version of the appellant.
From the perusal of the record, it is found that first information report, which is lodged on the basis of an application under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. moved by the appellant after about nine months of the incident. The delay in lodging the first information report, has not been explained by the appellant. Only version of the appellant is that her medical, which was done on the next day of the incident and her statement has not been considered by the trial court. In her medical report, which is appended at page no. 29 of the paper book, four injuries are found on the person of the injured. It is true that all these four injuries and complaint of pain, all are found to be simple in nature. In the first information report, there is allegation of molestation, thrashing and hurling caste based words and given threat of life. The victim in her statement
under section 161 Cr. P.C. has only said that opposite party no.2Pappu entered into her house forcibly and started hurling abuses and thrashed her with kicks and blows. On her hue and cry, her brother-in-law, cousin father-in-law came there. So far as the statement of cousin father-in-law is concerned, he has only stated in his statement that he saw Pappu entering into her house, but he has not reiterated any of the allegations made by the appellant in the first information report or in her statement. If we go through the statement of the father-in-law of the first informant, he has also not seen any incident except that opposite party no.2 coming out from the house of the appellant, having pistol in his hand. It is the version of the appellant that she was molested and thrashed at the hands of the opposite party no.2. In a question whether the opposite party no.2 did anything wrong with her., she has answered to the Mahila Constable that opposite party no.2-Pappu did not commit any wrong with her. So far as the statement of the brother-in-law of the appellant regarding molesting the appellant is concerned, he himself has not seen any incident. The appellant in her statement under Section 161 Cr. P.C. has not stated even a word about her molestation at the hands of the opposite party no.2. She has stated of thrashing her by the opposite party no.2 and this version of the first informant has not been supported by the version of any of the witnesses. It is true that medical of the victim is on record regarding simple injuries. It is admitted that there is a dispute between the father-in-law of the appellant and the opposite party no.2 regarding a plot and the case with regard to this plot is pending in the Civil Court, Auraiya. There is no independent witness supporting the version of the appellant. There is no explanation of moving an application under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. after nine months of the incident. There is no evidence on record that opposite party no.2 can be summoned to face the trial under any of the offence mentioned.
In the opinion of the court, there is no sufficient evidence available on record to proceed against the opposite party no.2. The order of the trial court is well discussed order passed on the basis of evidence on record, which needs no interference.
Criminal Appeal is dismissed . The order of trial court dated 13.07.2021 is affirmed.
Order Date :- 23.8.2023 T.S.
Digitally signed by :- TRIBHUWAN SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant proceeding against the opposite party No. 2 whom the trial court refused to summon.
Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the protest petition due to delay in FIR and lack of witness support.
5 provisions across 3 enactments
Smt. Priti
State of U.P.
Pappu
Sadhna Rani (Thakur)
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
