Criminal appeal by appellants against rejection of discharge application under SC/ST Act. Court noted appellants failed to raise the main defense before trial court. Appeal dismissed; matter will be heard on merits after evidence.
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:178392
Court No. - 84
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7483 of 2023
Appellant :- Ramsewak Singh Yadav And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Mohd. Afzal,Shardool Agrahari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Dharmendra Pratap Singh
Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and perused the record.
By filing this appeal order dated 19.06.2023 passed by the Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act)/ F.T.C., Kaushambi in Session Trial No. 132 of 2022 (State Vs. Ramsewak Yadav and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 07 of 2022, under Sections 147, 323, 504 I.P.C. and under Sections 3(1) Dha, 3(2) (va) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Kadadhan, District Kaushambi has been challenged.
By impugned order, the discharge application of the appellants was rejected by the trial court.
As per facts of the case, an FIR was lodged by the respondent no.2 against all the five appellants with the allegation that due to election enmity they badly thrashed respondent no.2 and also to Dashrath and Mohanlal, who came for his rescue. They also hurled caste based abuses. On the basis of this FIR, after investigation charge-sheet was filed under Sections 147, 323, 504 IPC and under Section 3(2) (va), 3(1) Dha of SC/ST Act against appellants Ramsewak Singh Yadav, Ranjeet Yadav, Vikas and charge-sheet under Sections 147, 323, 504 IPC was filed against appellants Mahesh Pradesh and Umesh Kumar. On the basis of this chargesheet, cognizance was taken by the trial court against the appellants. Against this cognizance order also, the appellants approached this Court and their criminal appeal against cognizance order was dismissed. However, the appellants were directed to move a discharge application before the trial court and on moving the discharge application the impugned order is said to have been passed by the trial court.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that as per version of the FIR due to election enmity this incident is said to
have taken place. No caste based words have been mentioned in the FIR, nor it has been mentioned in the FIR that respondent no.2 belongs to the SC/ST community and three of the appellants belong to the general class. It is also not mentioned in the impugned FIR that the incident took place because of first informant belonging to the SC/ST community, nor there is any mention that respondent no.2 was intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to humiliate him because of his being a person belonging to the SC/ST community. Again, it is argued that as the offence was not committed because of the respondent no.2 belonging to the SC/ST community, hence, the discharge application rejecting under Sections of SC/ST Act is against the provisions of law, hence, the prayer is made accordingly.
Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 opposed the prayer and submitted that only two points were raised by the learned counsel for the appellants as the accused counsel in the trial court; one that the first information report has been lodged with delay and secondly that no independent witness has been shown and both these points have been properly meet out by the trial court. Here, the learned counsel for the appellants did not argue any of these points, hence, he is estopped from raising fresh arguments here.
From the perusal of the record, it is found that as impugned order has not been challenged regarding framing of charge under Sections of IPC, the only objection is with regard to the rejection of the discharge application with regard to framing of charge under Sections 3(2) (va) & 3(1) Dha of SC/ST Act against appellants Ramsewak Singh Yadav, Ranjeet Yadav, Vikas Yadav, hence, the appeal on behalf of appellants Mahesh Pradesh and Umesh Kumar the charge being not challenged with regard to Sections 147, 323 and 504 IPC is hereby dismissed .
So far as the allegations regarding rest three appellants Ramsewak Singh Yadav, Ranjeet Yadav and Vikas Yadav are concerned, the only argument made is that in the FIR there is no mention of the caste of any of the parties. It has also not been mentioned in the FIR that the intention of the appellants was to humiliate the first informant because of his belonging to the SC/ST community.
In the opinion of the Court, because this argument was not raised before the trial court so the trial court did not give any finding in this regard. In the FIR, the first informant has clearly mentioned that " jati suchakon ka prayog kiya aur kaha ki kal ki meeting mein jaoge toh saale 'pasi' ke 'pasi' reh jaoge ."
On the basis of these words used in the FIR, this Court is of the opinion that whether these words were used with intent to humiliate the first informant with the knowledge of the respondent no.2 belonging to the scheduled caste or scheduled tribe community or these words were used with intent to humiliate respondent no.2/ first informant because of his belonging to the SC/ST community shall be decided after the evidence of the parties.
In the opinion of the Court, at this stage the appeal has no merits.
The appeal is dismissed , accordingly.
Order Date :- 15.9.2023 Radhika
Digitally signed by :- RADHIKA VISHWAKARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the casted-atrocities offence charged based on FIR allegations of caste abuse warrants reversal of trial court's rejection of discharge application.
Whether arguments regarding incomplete invocation of SC/ST Act defenses can be raised in appeal when not presented to the trial court.
Ramsewak Singh Yadav And 4 Others
State Of U.P. And Another
Sadhna Rani
Radhika Vishwakarma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
