Allowed

Bhagat Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC5 Aug 2024CRLA/6252/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against conviction under Sections 420, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(10) SC/ST Act for a fraudulent 1994 sale transaction. The court found the appellant was only a marginal witness, the FIR was lodged after about seven years without explanation of delay, no cancellation suit was filed, and co-accused were acquitted on the same evidence. Conviction set aside.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence dated 30.05.2024 set aside; appellant to be released forthwith, with liberty to opposite party no. 2 to seek reconsideration.

Bhagat Singh vs State of U.P. and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:148357

¶2

Court No. - 83

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6252 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Bhagat Singh Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Vijay Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Vijay Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

Despite huge efforts made by the office as well as learned A.G.A for service of notice upon opposite party no. 2 by way of publishing in daily newspaper i.e. Amar Ujala on dated 07.09.2024, no one appeared on her behalf even in revised call.

¶8

The instant appeal under Section 14-A(1) of S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 (Amendment Act, 2015) has been preferred for challenging impugned conviction and sentence judgment and order dated 30.05.2024 passed by the Court of Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Aligarh District Aligarh in Session Trial No. 1033 of 2002 (CNR No. UPAL010000252000) (State Vs. Smt Heera Devi and Another) which arise from the Case Crime No. 63 of 2000, under Sections 420, 504, 506 of IPC and Section 3 (1)(10) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Sasni Gate, District Aligarh through which appellant has been convicted with the punishment of two years simple imprisonment alongwith fine.

¶9

The brief facts of the present case are that one Smt. Heera Devi with the help of her sons executed agreement to sale deed on dated 28.06.1994 in pursuance of plot no. 236 in favour of informant. After purchasing some parts from the aforesaid plot it came into knowledge of informant/opposite party no. 2 that Smt. Heera Devi by making forged documents, sold the land to the opposite party no. 2 fraudulently. When the opposite party no. 2 asked to Smt. Heera Devi to return her money, opposite party no. 2 alongwith others abused her by using caste abusive words and threatened her. Being aggrieved with the same, the opposite party no. 2 moved an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the court concerned for lodging an F.I.R. against the accused persons when non action taken by the police concerned. In pursuance of same an

¶10

F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No. 63 of 2000, under Sections 420, 468, 471, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST Act was lodged against the accused persons.

¶11

After registration of F.I.R., charge-sheet was filed by concerned Investigating Officer whereupon cognizance was taken and trial was started which culminated into judgment and order dated 30.05.2024 which impugned the present appeal through which appellant was convicted with punishment of two years simple imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs. 5,000/- under section 420 IPC, imprisonment of six months each alongwith fine of Rs. 5,000/under sections 504, 506 of IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST Act.

¶12

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was the only a marginal witness in the aforesaid registered agreement to sale which was executed by the co-accused i.e. her mother who has already been expired. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the said deed was executed in the year 1994 but the F.I.R. was lodged in the year 2000 without explaining the delay, moreso, there are several contradictions in the statement of the witnesses recorded during trial. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that relying upon the prosecution story as well as witnesses and evidences available on record, learned trial court convicted the appellant but on the other hand, over the same evidence other co-accused were acquitted meaning thereby, learned trial court passed the impugned order without application of its judicial mind in arbitrary manner and as such, the same may be set aside. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the appellant is aged about 60 years and also suffering from serious ailment. Learned counsel for the appellant lastly submitted that no suit for cancellation of said deed has ever been preferred at the behest of opposite party no. 2 and as such the matter has been given only a criminal colour by way of implicating the appellant in the present case.

¶13

Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer made in the appeal and supported the order impugned by submitting that the appellant had committed fraud which has already been proved during trial and as such the order impugned is just and proper.

¶14

After having the rival contentions extended by learned counsel for both the parties and perusal of entire material available on record, it is apparent that the appellant was only a marginal witness in the aforesaid deed executed by his mother in the year 1994 on the basis of power of attorney. It is also apparent from the record that no suit for cancellation of the said deed has ever been

¶15

preferred by the opposite party no. 2 and the F.I.R. was lodged after about 7 years giving criminal colour to the matter without explanation of delay. The argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant that order impugned is bad in the eye of law since on the same set of facts and evidence, learned trial court convicted the appellant and acquitted the other co-accused persons, seems to be forceful.

¶16

In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, judgment and order dated 30.05.2024 passed by the Court of Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Aligarh District Aligarh in Session Trial No. 1033 of 2002 (CNR No. UPAL010000252000) (State Vs. Smt Heera Devi and Another) which arise from the Case Crime No. 63 of 2000, under Sections 420, 504, 506 of IPC and Section 3 (1)(10) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Sasni Gate, District Aligarh is hereby set aside.

¶17

The appeal stands allowed .

¶18

The appellant shall be released forthwith.

¶19

However, it is made clear that at any stage, if the information will be received by opposite party no. 2 about this order, she will be at liberty to prefer specific application for reconsidering the orders as made above, if required.

¶20

Order Date :- 10.9.2024 Vikram

¶21

Digitally signed by :- VIKRAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Bhagat Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagat Singh 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Leeladhar and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Jindabad Dubey and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Nikhil Raj vs State of Up and Another

Ompal vs State of U.P. and Another

Jagdev and 2 Others vs State of Up and Another

Ashutosh Kumar Sisodiya vs State of U.P. and Another