Partly allowed

Shivbabu Mishra v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC23 Aug 2023CRLA/7243/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal partly. It set aside the Special Judge's order of cognizance regarding Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act for lack of caste-based allegations but confirmed cognizance for IPC offenses 354, 452, 504, and 506.

What did the court decide?

The order of cognizance dated 19.05.2023 was set aside only to the extent of Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act, while cognizance under Sections 354, 452, 504, and 506 IPC was confirmed.

Shivbabu Mishra Vs State of U.P. and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:170123

¶2

Court No. - 84

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7243 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Shivbabu Mishra Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Rang Nath Pandey,Satyendra Narayan Singh

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Vivek Kumar Singh

¶6

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

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and perused the record.

¶8

This is an appeal under Section 14A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the order dated 19.05.2023 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Jaunpur in Case Crime No.17/ 2023 (S.T. No. 202/2023) (State Vs. Shivbabu Mishra), under Sections 354, 452, 504, 506 IPC and 3(2)5A of SC/ST Act, Police Station Sikrara, District Jaunpur.

¶9

By impugned order, the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Jaunpur took cognizance under Sections 354, 452, 504, 506 IPC and 3(2)5A of SC/ST Act against the appellant.

¶10

It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that regarding incident dated 03.08.2022 an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved on 13.11.2022 and on the basis of that application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., FIR was lodged on 03.02.2023. In fact, the first informant/ respondent no.2 used to work in the field of appellant on adhiya batai (sharing basis). When she was refused to work at his field, the respondent no.2 started leaving her cattle in the field of the appellant causing him loss of crops. In fact, regarding this dispute only the appellant was challaned by the police under Sections 151, 107, 116 of Cr.P.C. The dispute was regarding grazing of cattles in his field. Only with the malafide intention the present FIR was lodged on false allegations. It is a malicious prosecution. Without doing any wrong the appellant has been falsely implicated, hence, the prayer is made accordingly.

¶11

Learned counsel for respondent no.2 opposed the prayer and

¶12

submitted that from FIR to the statement of the first informant/respondent no.2 under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. there is same version of the first informant that in the night of 03.04.2022 when the first informant was sleeping, at about 12 in the night the present appellant entered in her house with the intention of committing rape on the first informant. As soon as he climbed up to the bed of the first informant, the first informant woke up. The appellant gagged her mouth and hold her breast. When the first informant raised an alarm, she was given a threat of life. Hearing her hue and cry, the mother-in-law, sister-in-law of the first informant and various other people came and witnessed the incident and locked the appellant in that room only. The sisterin-law of the first informant made a call at number 112. Police came and took Shivbabu Mishra (appellant) to the police station but on her application, no action was taken by the police. Later on 05.08.2022, the first informant moved an application to S.P. concerned and on 08.08.2022 she moved an application to Director of Police, Lucknow, National Human Rights Commission, Lucknow, Inspector General, Lucknow, Commission for Women, Lucknow and Commission for SCs and STs, Lucknow but no action was taken. On the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. FIR was lodged and after the statement of the victim/ first informant under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and the statement of the other witnesses, the charge-sheet was filed against the appellant under Sections 354, 452, 504, 506 IPC and 3(2) (va) of SC/ST Act. Challani report dated 04.08.2022 is on record, whereby because of the dispute of grazing of animals the police challaned the appellant under Section 151, 107, 116 Cr.P.C.

¶13

If we go through the version of the FIR, there is allegation that the appellant entered into the house of the first informant/ respondent no.2 with the intention of causing rape and there only within the four walls he is said to have hurled caste based abuses against the first informant. For the offence under Section 3(2) (va) of SC/ST Act, the offence must be committed against a person knowing that such person is a member of a scheduled caste or scheduled tribe but it is nowhere mentioned in the present FIR that the offence was committed by the appellant with the first informant because of her being a member of a scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. When there is no allegation of causing any wrong by the appellant because of the respondent no.2 belonging to the SC/ST community, so in the opinion of the Court, no offence under Section 3(2) (va) of SC/ST Act can be said to be prima facie made out against the appellant. So far as the allegations under Sections 354, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C. are concerned, as there are allegations

¶14

regarding the offences mention under these sections in the FIR, the version of FIR is supported by the first informant in her statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., the charge-sheet has also been filed under these sections and on the very next day on 04.08.2022 the police has challaned the appellant under sections 151, 107, 116 Cr.P.C. As per the report of the police, there was dispute between the parties regarding the grazing of animals by the respondent no.2 in the fields of the appellant, which reflects that the dispute took place between the parties but what dispute was raised there and what offence was committed by the appellant shall be decided by the trial court after evidence of the parties.

¶15

Hence, the order dated 19.05.2023 of the trial court taking cognizance is set aside only to the extent of Section 3(2) (va) of SC/ST Act. Regarding Sections 354, 452, 504, 506 of I.P.C. the cognizance order stands confirmed.

¶16

The appeal is allowed partly.

¶17

Order Date :- 23.8.2023 Radhika

¶18

Digitally signed by :- RADHIKA VISHWAKARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shivbabu Mishra v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivbabu Mishra 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. Reena Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohit Yadav and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinod Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Others

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