Disposed

Kanhaiya Lal Yadav and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC9 Feb 2024CRLA/391/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge listed a criminal appeal challenging an order taking cognizance of offences including SC/ST Act provisions and rape, noting major contradictions in the victim's statements and directing the filing of an affidavit regarding caste.

What did the court decide?

Stay on coercive action against appellants till next date; affidavit directed.

Kanhaiya Lal Yadav and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru… — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 13

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 391 of 2024

¶3

Appellant :- Kanhaiya Lal Yadav And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And Another

¶4

Counsel for Appellant :- Pal Singh Yadav,Ashish Kumar Singh,Prathama Singh

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶8

The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 17.01.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sitapur in Session Trial No.68/2018 arising out of complaint case no.3584/2014 under Sections 452, 376(2)(gha), 506 I.PC. and 3(i)(xii) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Sidhauli, District Sitapur.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that one N.C.R. No.317 of 2013 under Section 323, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Sidhauli, Sitapur was filed against husband of the private respondent, namely, Kamlesh and due to annoyance, application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved by the private respondent on the basis of concocted facts, on which, order was passed for lodging of F.I.R. No.38/2014 under Section 452, 376(2)(gha), 506 I.PC. and 3(i)(xii) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Sidhauli, District Sitapur in relation to the alleged incident dated 10.12.2013. He also submits that as per the prosecution case on 10.12.2013 at about 7:00 p.m., appellantKanhaiyalal, Ramswaroop @ Rajjan and Kallu Yadav put a weapon on victim, thereafter, appellant Ramswaroop @ Rajjan & Kallu closed her mouth and committed wrong, in the meantime, she requested to leave her child aged about one year, but they warn her that if she wants to save her child, they must be allowed to do as per their wish. She also averred that Kanhaiya Lal Yadav also committed wrong with her, then she started weeping and on her cry, her mother-in-law and husband Kamlesh came on the spot, they saw that

¶10

appellant Kanhaiyalal Yadav was coming outside from house with a weapon, thereafter, appellants given warning to not take any action against them.

¶11

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that statement of victim was recorded under Sections 161 as well as 164 Cr.P.C. and in her statement recorded under Sections 164 Cr.P.C., she stated that on the date of incident, she was alone in her house, and her child was in her lap, then appellants, Kanhaiya Lal Yadav, Ramswaroop and Kallu Yadav came and Kanhaiyalal caught her mouth, pushed her on the bed and committed wrong and other appellants started playing with the child happily and thereafter, Kallu Yadav committed wrong with her. She also averred that she started weeping and told to leave her child then Kanhaiya Lal given threat by passing some racial word and thereafter, her mother-in-law came and she narrated the incident to her. He also submits that village pradhan informed that Kamlesh belongs to Yadav community, thereafter, final report was submitted and protest petition was filed, which was allowed by rejecting the final report and same was treated as complaint case, thereafter, statement of victim, her mother-in-law and husband were recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and cognizance order was passed in the most mechanical manner without considering evidences collected by the Investigating Officer. He also submits that merely on the basis of deposition of three persons, trial of offence related to the gang rape should not be conducted in a complaint case and in case final report was rejected then it was obligatory on the part of the court below to pass order for further investigation, therefore, indulgence of this Court is necessary.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. vehemently oppose the prayer of the appellant and submits that he does not dispute the fact that there is contradiction in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as well as 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.

¶13

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-applicant,

¶14

learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R. as well as statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as well as 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., there is a major contradiction in the statement of victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as well as 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. , therefore, matter require consideration.

¶15

Issue notice.

¶16

List this case in the month of April, 2024.

¶17

Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the appellants.

¶18

S.D.M.., Sidhauli, Sitapur is also directed to file affidavit explaining the caste of the victim and her husband.

¶19

Order Date :- 15.2.2024 Gaurav-Arpan/-

¶20

Digitally signed by :- ARPAN GAURAV PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Kanhaiya Lal Yadav and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanhaiya Lal Yadav and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Arshad Jameel vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 2 Others

Ravi vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Subhash and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Rajpal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 2 Others

Bhagwati Prasad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Vishnu Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and 3 Others