Allowed

Jeetu @ Sachin Srivastava and 5 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another

Allahabad HC21 Feb 2024/313/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal, setting aside an order that rejected a discharge application in an SC/ST case. The Court remanded the matter, directing the trial court to revisit the application and provide a reasoned order given the lack of medical evidence for the victim.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside. Discharge application to be considered afresh by trial court with reasoned order.

Jeetu @ Sachin Srivastava and 5 Others Vs State… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:15445

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 313 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Jeetu @ Sachin Srivastava And 5 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko And Another

¶5

Counsel for Appellant :- Ritwick Rai,A A Zaidi,Alok Kumar Singh,Ankit Kumar Pandey,Aviral Raj Singh,Dhruv Kumar Singh,Palash Banerjee,Vaibhav Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel appearing for the complainant.

¶8

This criminal appeal has been filed under Sections 14A(1) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against order dated 17.01.2024 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Lucknow in Sessions Case No. 3035 of 2023 arising out of F.I.R. No. 138 of 2023, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 452, 427 I.P.C., Sections 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Mohanlalganj, District Lucknow.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that as per the prosecution case, the incident is dated 7th November, 2022, but the F.I.R. was lodged on 22.03.2023 in pursuance of the order passed by the Magistrate dated 25th January, 2023 on the application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The allegations made in the F.I.R. are that all the six accused persons came to the house of the complainant and demanded Rs.500/- by calling him for consuming liquor, but when the same was denied by the complainant, they started abusing by passing racial words and also started beating him with kicks, punches, lathi and danda. The complainant, in order to save himself, entered into the

¶10

house, but the accused persons also entered in the house and again started beating him. It is also alleged in the F.I.R. that when the wife of the complainant tried to save him, she was also beaten by the accused persons. On their alarm, the villagers came on the spot, on which, the accused persons went away by giving life threat. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that though the complainant and his wife received several injuries in the incident, but the complainant was not medically examined and only the medical report of his wife dated 09.11.2022 was placed before the Investigating OfÏcer, who without interrogating the complainant in relation to the injuries received by him, as alleged in the F.I.R. as well as in the statement, prepared the charge sheet in just 10 days from the date of lodging of the F.I.R., i.e., on 02.04.2023 in mechanical manner. It is next submitted that appellant no. 2 moved an application for fresh investigation in the matter, on which, order was passed by the Additional Commissioner of police (South), Lucknow for further investigation. In the meantime, some afÏdavits were given by the independent persons with the averment that no such incident was taken place, even then, supplementary charge sheet was prepared by the Investigating OfÏcer on 21.08.2023, on which, cognizance was also taken by the trial court. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the proceedings were challenged before this Court by means of Criminal Appeal No. 3570 of 2023, which was disposed of vide order dated 21.12.2023 with the direction to move discharge application before the trial court. In pursuance of the said order, discharge application was moved by the appellants, but the same has been rejected vide impugned order dated 17.01.2024 in mechanical manner, without considering the fact that initially, the complainant was beaten by the accused persons outside his house with lathi and danda and again he was beaten inside the house and when his wife came to rescue him, she was also beaten and in the said incident, both received

¶11

several injuries. However, admittedly, the complainant was not medically examined.

¶12

Submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the genesis of the case is itself doubtful, but the trial court passed the impugned order by only appreciating the injuries of the wife of the complainant and rejected the application for discharge. Relying on paragraph 23 of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Krishna Lal Chawla & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., (2021) 5 SCC 435 , learned counsel for the appellants submits that it is obligatory on the part of the trial court to consider and decide the discharge application on merit by considering all the aspect of the prosecution case as well as the defence version. It is, thus, submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside along with the entire proceedings pending before the trial court.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant oppose the prayer of the appellants and submit there is no illegality in the order passed by the trial court. It is further submitted that all the defence advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants can be raised at the appropriate stage during the course of trial.

¶14

Learned counsel for the complainant, relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Hem Chand Vs. State of Jharkhand , AIR 2008 SC 1903 and Onkar Nath Mishra & Ors. Vs. State (NCT Of Delhi) & Anr., (2008) 2 SCC 561 , submits that defence of the accused persons cannot be considered at the time of deciding the discharge application.

¶15

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A., learned counsel for the complainant and going through the contents of the appeal, F.I.R., statements of the witnesses, impugned order, medico legal report of the wife of the complainant, observations of the Investigating OfÏcer as well as other

¶16

relevant documents, it is evident that the alleged incident was taken place on 7th November, 2022, but there is no evidence that either the complainant visited the police station or he made any complaint to the police control room, though he is having mobile phone bearing no. 9554778883. It is further evident from the record that the genesis of the prosecution case is that the complainant was beaten by the appellants with lathi and danda outside the house as well as inside the house and when his wife came to rescue him, she also received injuries. Though, as per the prosecution case, mainly the injuries were caused to the complainant, but admittedly, he was not medically examined and only the medico legal report of his wife dated 09.11.2022, which was placed before the Investigating OfÏcer, is available on record, which shows that she was medically examined by the Emergency Medical OfÏcer, Community Health Center, Mohanlalganj, Lucknow, where she was brought by her husband/complainant of the present case. Indeed, it was obligatory on the part of the trial court to consider this fact also that as to why the complainant was not medically examined.

¶17

In view of above facts and discussions, the impugned order dated 17.01.2024 is hereby set aside. The appeal stands allowed.

¶18

Trial court is directed to consider the discharge application of the appellants afresh and passed reasoned and speaking order within a period of three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

¶19

For a period of three weeks or till the disposal of the discharge application, whichever is earlier, no coercive steps shall be taken against the appellants.

¶20

Order Date :- 21.2.2024 VKS

¶21

Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Jeetu @ Sachin Srivastava and 5 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jeetu @ Sachin Srivastava and 5 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Putan Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Satish Kumar Sharma @ Raju Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Adarsh Dhuriya @ Adarsh Kahar @ Adesh Dhuriya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Shri Ram vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lko. and 3 Others

Shri Ram vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Suryabhan and Others vs Shri Shwetabh Singh, Nayab Tehsildar, Tehsil-Milkipur, Ayodhya