Dismissed¶16

Pravesh Prajapati @ Pravesh v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC7 Aug 2024/2426/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 319 Cr.P.C. summoning of additional accused; SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act appeal under Section 14-A(1); Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92; Sagar v. State of U.P., (2022) 6 SCC 389; Section 319 power discretionary and extraordinary, to be exercised sparingly; victim and eyewitness (PW-2) statements as basis for summoning; Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act, Ambedkar Nagar; Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench; Abdul Moin, J.; appeal dismissed; Neutral Citation 2024:AHC-LKO:54733.

What did the court decide?

None; the appeal was dismissed and the trial Court's order dated 04.07.2024 summoning the appellant under Section 319 Cr.P.C. stands. ¶16

Pravesh Prajapati @ Pravesh Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another — Allahabad HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the appeal was dismissed and the trial Court's order dated 04.07.2024 summoning the appellant under Section 319 Cr.P.C. stands.

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 04.07.2024 summoning the appellant under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was passed without any cogent reason and without strong evidence, and therefore merits to be set aside.

¶9

Court's answer

Section 319 Cr.P.C. empowers the trial Court, where in the course of any inquiry into or trial of an offence it appears from the evidence that a person not being the accused has committed an offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, to proceed against such person.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

The statement of the victim clearly indicated the appellant's role in beating up the victim, and was supported by prosecution witness-2, who concurred and stated the appellant was present on the spot and assaulted the victim; this evidence supported the summoning order.

¶14

Key takeaways

Applying Sagar (which considered the Constitution Bench judgment in Hardeep Singh), the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is a discretionary and extraordinary power to be exercised sparingly; the learned trial Court considered the statements of both the victim and the witness to arrive at a finding on the appellant's role, which perfectly supports the impugned order dated 04.07.2024.ratio¶15
Once the evidence was clearly available and had in fact been considered by the Court concerned, this Court finds no error in the impugned order.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the order dated 04.07.2024 of the Special Judge, S.C/S.T (P.A.) Act, Ambedkar Nagar, summoning the appellant as an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. in Special Session Trial No. 111 of 2020 (Case Crime No. 212 of 2019, Sections 323, 325, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3(1)(Da) & (Dha) of the S.C. & S.T. Act). HELD, dismissing the appeal: (i) the statement of the victim clearly indicated the appellant's role in beating him up, and was corroborated by PW-2, who placed the appellant on the spot and stated he assaulted the victim; (ii) following Sagar v. State of U.P., (2022) 6 SCC 389, which considered the Constitution Bench judgment in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92, the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is discretionary and extraordinary and is to be exercised sparingly, and the trial Court had validly exercised it on the statements of the victim and the witness; (iii) no error was made out in the impugned order.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:54733

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2426 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Pravesh Prajapati @ Pravesh Respondent :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Sanjay Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA appearing on behalf of the State-respondents.

¶7

Instant criminal appeal under Section 14 (A) 1 of the Schedule Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed against the order dated 04.07.2024 passed by the Special Judge, S.C/S.T (P.A.) Act, Ambedkar Nagar in Special Session Trial No. 111 of 2020 arising out of Case Crime No. 212 of 2019 under Sections 323, 325, 504, 506 I.P.C & 3 (1) Da & Dha of the S.C & S.T Act.

¶8

By the said order, upon an application being filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C, the learned trial Court has summoned the appellant herein.

¶9

Argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that considering the provisions of Section 319 of the Code read with the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Ors reported in (2014) 3 SCC 92 the said order as passed by the learned trial Court has been passed without any cogent reason and without there being any strong evidence against the appellant herein consequently, the impugned order merits to be set aside.

¶10

In this regard, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sagar Vs. State of U.P & Ors reported in (2022) 6 SCC 389 .

¶11

On the other hand, learned AGA has supported the order passed by the learned trial Court and has also argued that the order impugned is in consonance with the provisions of Section 319 of the Code.

¶12

Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting parties and having perused the records what emerges is that by means of the order dated 04.07.2024 passed by the learned trial Court, the appellant has been summoned.

¶13

Section 319 of the Cr.P.C clearly gives the power to the learned trial Court where in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person.

¶14

From a perusal of the order impugned it emerges that in the statement given by the victim he has clearly indicated about the role of the appellant herein of the appellant having beaten up the victim. The said statement is also supported by the statement of prosecution witness-2 also wherein she has also concurred with the statement as has been given by the victim and has also indicated about the appellant having been present on the spot and having assaulted the victim.

¶15

The Apex Court in the case of sagar (supra) while considering the Constitution Bench judgment in the case of Hardeep Singh (supra) has clearly laid down while considering the provisions of Section 319 of the Cr.P.C that though the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C is a discretionary and an extraordinary power it is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant which would perfectly support the order impugned dated 04.07.2024 inasmuch as the learned trial Court has considered the statement of both the victim as well as the witness to arrive at a finding of the role of the appellant in the entire episode.

¶16

Once the evidence was clearly available and which in fact has been considered by the Court concerned consequently, this Court does not find any error in the order impugned. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

¶17

Order Date :- 7.8.2024 Pachhere/-

¶18

Digitally signed by :- SATYENDRA SINGH PACHHERE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Pravesh Prajapati @ Pravesh v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pravesh Prajapati @ Pravesh v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kallu @ Rahish and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Ashish Mani Tripathi and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Smt. Roshanjahan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Gyanendra Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Mohd. Amaan Siddiqui @ Kasab vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Pravesh Prajapati @ Pravesh vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another