Sona Devi @ Sonpati Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:16338

Court No. - 12

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 224 of 2025 Appellant :- Sona Devi @ Sonpati Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Amit Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Brijesh Kumar Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Amit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. on behalf of respondent No.1.

¶6

In the light of the proposed order, notice to respondent No.2 is dispensed with.

¶7

The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A (1) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred against the order dated 06.12.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sultanpur in Special Trial No. 8 of 2006 (State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Sri Ram Verma) arising out of Case Crime No. 97 of 2004, under Sections 323/504/506 I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) (x) SC/ST Act, Police Station Piparpur, District Amethi.

¶8

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was filed by the appellant along with her Late husband Sonpati against opposite party No.2, praying for registration of a case under Sections 147, 148, 323, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C. and also provisions of SC/ST Act at Police Station Piparpur, District Sultanpur with regard to the incident, which allegedly occurred on 09.10. 2004. The matter was investigated by the police and chargesheet was filed under Section 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) (x) SC/ST Act mentioning 12 witnesses. The trial court has proceeded with the trial where number of prosecution witnesses have been examined and summons were also issued to the Investigating Officer. Despite summons, the

¶9

Investigating Office did not appear nor did he file any application for exemption and the said facts have been duly recorded by the trial court in its order dated 23.11.2024 and 06.12.2024. On 06.12.2024, the trial court has observed that the police officer against whom the summons were issued has been posted to other places. Surprisingly the prosecution was not aware about the place of posting and after observing that the Special Prosecutor is being warned, as he has not taken the matter seriously the opportunity of the prosecution was closed.

¶10

Being aggrieved by the order dated 06.12.2024, the present appeal has been filed stating that it was the duty of the prosecution to have produced the police officer, who despite summons did not appear before the trial court and the opportunity of the prosecution to adduce evidence has been closed, which may adversely affected the trial.

¶11

In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court taking cognizance of the aforesaid facts had granted time to learned A.G.A. to intimate the current posting of the S.O. Aditya Shukla and on the basis of instructions, learned A.G.A. has informed this Court that Sri Aditya Shukla is presently posted as Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Establishment, Uttar Pradesh Varanasi Sector, District Varanasi having CUG No.9454401222 and private number 9818372905.

¶12

Considering the aforesaid facts and from the perusal of the Order Sheet, I find that when process had also been issued for appearance of the police officer, then it was mandatory for him to have appeared before the trial court and without discharging the warrants issued against him the opportunity of the prosecution has been wrongly closed. The opportunity could not have been closed without discharging the warrants issued against the police officer. Apart from the above, I find that it was the bounded duty of the public prosecutor to inform the court about the current address of the official witness, which again is a serious lapse on the part of the prosecution.

¶13

In view of the above, order dated 06.12.2024

¶14

passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sultanpur in Special Trial No. 8 of 2006 (State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Sri Ram Verma) arising out of Case Crime No. 97 of 2004, under Sections 323/504/506 I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) (x) SC/ST Act, Police Station Piparpur, District Amethi is set aside.

¶15

Let fresh order/summons be issued with regard to appearance of Sri Aditya Shukla presently posted as Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Establishment, Uttar Pradesh Varanasi Sector, District Varanasi having CUG No.9454401222 and private number 9818372905 and after recording his statement as if he again fail to appear take coercive measure for his appearance and the trial court may proceed further in accordance with law.

¶16

In light of the above, the appeal is allowed.

¶17

Learned A.G.A. shall also communicate this order to the concerned police officer for compliance.

¶18

(Alok Mathur,J.)

¶19

Order Date :- 19.3.2025

¶20

Arvind

¶21

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

Sona Devi @ Sonpati v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sona Devi @ Sonpati v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dhirendra Kumar vs Principal Judge, Family Court, Unnao and Another

Juvenile Offender B as Per Appellate Order vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Satyendra Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

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

Om Prakash Sharma and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and 3 Others

Om Prakash Sharma and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others