Jitendra Kumar @ Jitendra Pasi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:23692

Court No. - 12

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1267 of 2025

Appellant :- Jitendra Kumar @ Jitendra Pasi Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Asheesh Misra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Asheesh Misra, learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. on behalf of the State.

¶7

Present criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14 A (1) of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the order dated 21.3.2025 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Raebareily in Sessions Trial No. 671 of 2011 (State Vs. Jaichandra Maurya and others) arising out of case crime No.1215/2010, under Sections 323/34, 504 and Section 3(1) (x) of S.C./S.T. Act relating to police station Mill Area, District Raebareli.

¶8

It has been submitted that a first information report was lodged by the petitioner with regard to an incident occurring on 14.8.2010 wherein it was stated that when the appellant had gone to see 'Dangal' of the village and was standing the in front of certain persons they referred him by his caste and abused him and when the appellant objected to the same they assaulted him due to which the appellant received injuries. In his complaint the appellant had named Suresh Kumar, Prem Kumar and Sonu as accused along with other persons.

¶9

During investigation no complicity of the said persons were find and accordingly the names of those persons were excluded from the charge sheet which was filed in the trial court. It is during the trial where testimony of the complaint has been concluded that an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was made for implicating Suresh, Prem and Sonu as accused in the said case and to summon them for being tried along with other accused persons.

¶10

The trial court by means of the impugned order dated 21.3.2025 has rejected the application preferred by the appellant. While rejecting the said application the trial court has duly looked into the testimony of P./W. -1 Ganga Ram, who in his examination in chief, has stated that it is the complainant who reached the place of dangal in an inebriated condition and

¶11

accordingly he himself, in fact, had abused all other persons due to which he was forced to leave the said ground with assistance of the police. Considering the testimony of Ganga Ram the trial court was of the considered view that he has not supported the case of the prosecution and has not substantiated the allegations raised by the petitioner with regard to complicity of Suresh, Prem and Sonu to the said incident and accordingly has rejected the application under Section 319 of Cr.P./C.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial court should have looked into the statement of the complainant himself while deciding his application where clear implication of aforesaid three persons have been stated. Accordingly, submits that the rejection of the application is clearly illegal and arbitrary.

¶13

Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the appeal and submits that while exercising the powers under Section 319 it is the discretion of the trial court to consider the evidence available on record as well as other material and in case he finds any substance with regard to complicity of other persons who are or not to be accused in the application under Section 319 he has the discretion to examine them and join them as accused in the said trial.

¶14

Considering the rival contentions, it is noticed that in the first information report the petitioner has named Suresh, Prem and Sonu as accused but during the investigation these names were excluded. Subsequently, application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. had been moved which has been rejected by the Special Judge. S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, Raebareli. It is noticed that the main reason for rejecting the application is consideration of the testimony of P.W.- 1 Ganga Ram who had stated that in fact it was the appellant himself who had reached the place of incident in an intoxicated condition and was abusing all other persons due to which he was removed from the said place and the police were also called. There is no mention that the appellant was assaulted by any of the said persons or other accused and consequently has not supported the case of the prosecution.

¶15

Accordingly, we find that there were substantial material before the trial court to have rejected the application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. finding that the allegations made by the appellant against aforesaid three persons could not be substantiated and accordingly there was no reliable and cogent material available on record to issue summons and try them in the said trial court.

¶16

In light of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the

¶17

impugned order dated 21.3.2025 and going through the testimony of statement of Ganga Ram, P.W.1, I find that the same does not implicate three persons for whom application under Section 219 has been made by the appellant nor do we find that discretionary exercise of the powers of the trial deserves any interference as the same has been passed after recording due reasons and considering the material available on record. The petition being devoid of merits is accordingly dismissed.

¶18

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶19

Order Date :- 25.4.2025 RKM.

¶20

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Jitendra Kumar @ Jitendra Pasi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Kumar @ Jitendra Pasi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Raj Kumari Singh Vs the State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Bijnesh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Ramesh Raj @ Ramesh Vs Smt. Preeti and Another

Rehana Fatima Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Lko. and 3 Others

Moinuddin Ahmad @ Mohd. Moinuddin Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Piyush Goswami Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others