Dismissed

Yashwant Singh v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC3 Apr 2025CRLA/841/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Yashwant Singh v. State of U.P., CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 841 of 2024 (Allahabad High Court, Nalin Kumar Srivastava, J., decided 4.4.2025, 2025:AHC:53371): appeal under S.14-A(1) SC/ST Act against cognizance and summoning order dated 4.12.2023 of Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Prayagraj in S.T. No. 584 of 2023 (case crime no. 005 of 2023, P.S. Kaundhiyara) under Ss.323, 504 IPC and Ss.3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) SC/S

What the court decided

AI extract

Yashwant Singh Vs State of Up and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:53371

¶2

Court No. - 80

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 841 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Yashwant Singh Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Amrendra Singh,Devendra Pratap Singh,Preet Pal Singh Rathore Counsel for Respondent :- Awaneesha Kumar,G.A.,Rajesh Kumar

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the respondent no.2 / informant and perused the entire record.

¶7

This Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A (1) of The Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short 'the SC/ST Act') has been preferred to quash the entire criminal proceeding of Session Trial No.584 of 2023 (State vs. Yashwant Singh) arising out of case crime no.005 of 2023, including cognizance and summoning order dated 4.12.2023 under Sections 323, 504 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Prayagraj, Police Station Kaundhiyara, District Prayagraj. It is further prayed on behalf of the appellant that the proceedings of the abovementioned case may be stayed.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. F.I.R. in this case was lodged belatedly and there is no plausible explanation offered by the prosecution regarding the delay. It is further submitted that the essential ingredients to constitute the offence under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act are completely missing in this case. No offence under the SC/ST Act is made out from the averments made in the F.I.R. itself. It is also submitted that the I.O. of the case has proceeded to record the statements of the informant and injured of this case as well as the witnesses and from the perusal of their statements no offence at all is made out against the appellant. It is also submitted that the learned Special Judge was not competent to take cognizance in this matter. It is also submitted that the F.I.R. lodged in this case is purely an abuse of process of the Court.

¶9

It is also submitted that in the F.I.R. it is alleged that Smt. Anita, the wife of the informant was inflicted several lathi blows by the appellant resulting into serious injuries and fracture in the leg of the injured but anyhow she was rescued by two ladies present on the spot. However, in the x-ray report of the injured, no fracture has been found, which falsifies the prosecution story. As a matter of fact, the present appellant was not present at the place of occurrence at the relevant point of time. The mandatory provisions of law have not been taken into account of by the learned Special Judge while taking cognizance of the offence and passing the summoning order against the appellant. The impugned order has been passed without applying the judicial mind and it is illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of law.

¶10

Another limb of argument is that the court concerned totally discarded the fact that the incident was not happened at a public place within the public view and there is no independent witness of the occurrence. It is also submitted that the medical evidence also was not in consonance with the prosecution case but the court concerned ignored this fact. It is also submitted that there was no cogent and reliable evidence to submit charge-sheet in this matter but the learned court concerned again failed to consider this fact and in an arbitrary manner, cognizance was taken into the offences alleged to be committed by the appellant and further to pass summoning order against the appellant.

¶11

The next argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the I.O. of this case collected absolutely no evidence to the effect that the incident took place in any place within the public view and intentional insult or intimidation was made by the appellant. It is further submitted that there is not even an iota of evidence on record as collected by the I.O. that the appellant committed the alleged offence for the simple reason of the injured being a member of SC/ST community. It is also submitted that the appellant never threatened the injured for life and no independent witness came forward to support the prosecution version in this respect.

¶12

It is next submitted that the entire proceeding is nothing but abuse of process of law. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the appellant have also been placed forth before the Court. Lastly, it is submitted that the impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court.

¶13

Per contra, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for

¶14

the respondent no.2 opposed the appeal and it has been submitted that since the charge-sheet has been submitted under section 323 I.P.C., it makes no difference if no fracture was found on the person of the injured of this case. It is also submitted that the incident took place in an open field and as per prosecution case, two women were also present over there who witnessed the incident, hence the offence was committed in a place within the public view. It is also submitted that there are ample evidence against the appellant in connection with the offence under sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act and sections 323, 504 IPC because the appellant hurled abuses by caste related remarks to the injured victim and she was also threatened by him for dire consequences. It is further submitted that the appellant used the word ' chamaeen sala ' while hurling abuses to the injured. It is also submitted that the appeal has no force. The orders taking cognizance and summoning the appellant as well have been passed keeping in view the relevant legal norms by the learned Special Judge which need not any interference. There is no illegality in the impugned order and the I.O. of this case after collecting ample evidence against the appellant has submitted charge-sheet and the learned trial court applying its judicial mind passed the summoning and the cognizance order as well. It is further submitted that the appellant is not entitled for any relief, thus, the present appeal may be dismissed.

¶15

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order.

¶16

From the perusal of the record it appears that in the F.I.R. of this case, it has been alleged by the informant that on 23.12.2022 at about 1:00 in the afternoon when the injured Anita, the wife of the informant, had gone to field alongwith two other women, the appellant hurled abuses to her by caste related remarks and also made an assault upon her with lathi and she sustained serious injuries in both of her legs and fracture was caused in the left leg. The F.I.R. was lodged on 10.1.2023 and investigation started and after investigation, the I.O. of this case submitted charge-sheet against the present appellant under Sections 323, 504 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act.

¶17

It further reveals from the perusal of the record that the learned trial court while taking cognizance of the matter has taken into account the evidence collected by the I.O. and cognizance was taken accordingly. It reflects that in the injury report of injured Anita, the doctor has found two injuries, out of which one was

¶18

complaint of pain in right foot and another was also complaint of pain in left foot with plaster just extending from below knee upto the foot wherefor x-ray was advised. It is pertinent to mention here that the injured was medically examined on 11.1.2023, however, in the x-ray, no fracture was found in the left foot of the injured.

¶19

In her statement given to the I.O. under section 161 Cr.P.C., the prosecution story, as narrated in the F.I.R., has been corroborated by the injured. She has also named the eyewitnesses of the case as Shyamkali and Parvati. It is notable to mention here that the said eyewitnesses on interrogation made by the I.O. have averred the same version as is found in the F.I.R.

¶20

The informant Khinni Lal, the husband of the injured, has also corroborated the F.I.R. version although he is not said to be the eyewitness of the occurrence and was not present at the place of occurrence but narrates the same story as narrated by the injured Anita.

¶21

Charge-sheet in this matter has been submitted under section 323 IPC as only simple injury has been caused to the injured and no fracture was found on the person of the injured. The Court also takes notice of this fact that there is no possibility of false implication at this stage.

¶22

It is true that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged very belatedly, but this is the primary stage of trial and evidence at length has to be adduced by the prosecution during the trial and the Court may find satisfactory explanation for the delay in lodging of the F.I.R.

¶23

To find out the requisite ingredients to establish an offence under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) [also to be read as Section 3(1)(da) and Section 3(1)(dha)], the provisions thereof, are reproduced below :

¶24

" 3. Punishments for offences of atrocities .— (1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,—

¶25

(r) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view;

¶26

(s) abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view."

¶27

So far as the offence under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act is concerned, the evidence on record must be capable of showing that the appellant intentionally insulted the victim or intimidated her with intention to humiliate in any place within public view and further also abused the victim by caste related remarks in any place within public view. It is true that the offence under Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act comes into picture only when intentional insult or intimidation or abusing takes place in any place within public view.

¶28

It is trite law that at the stage of taking cognizance and summoning the accused, the Magistrate / Court dealing with the matter is required to apply judicial mind only with a view to take cognizance of the offence to find-out as to whether prima-facie case has been made out to summon the accused or not. The Court at this stage is not required to analyze the material on record to find-out as to whether the matter may lead to conviction or not. Sufficiency of materials for the purpose of conviction is not required. It is also settled that even when there are materials raising strong suspicion against the accused, the Court will be justified in taking cognizance and summoning the accused. The Court / Magistrate is not required to analyze the evidence on merits but to scrutinize the evidence only with a view as to whether sufficient grounds exist to initiate criminal proceedings in respect of the offence which is said to have been committed (Vide : R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283) .

¶29

Further, what is 'sufficient ground' for proceeding to issue summons and warrant has been clarified in Nirmaljit Singh Vs. State of West Bengal, (1973) 3 SCC 753 and it is held therein that the words "sufficient ground" used in Section 203 have been construed to mean the satisfaction that a prima facie case is made out against the person accused by the evidence of witnesses entitled to a reasonable degree of credit and not sufficient ground for the purpose of conviction.

¶30

It is also not out of the scope of subject here that an order passed to summon the accused is an opinion of the Magistrate and to pass a detailed order or to state the grounds of his satisfaction is not required from a Magistrate, however the summoning order must be a speaking order.

¶31

In State of Gujarat v. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta, (2019) 20 SCC 539 , the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated that for issuance of summons strict standard of proof of satisfaction of the Magistrate regarding sufficiency of ground(s) to proceed in the matter is not required and such satisfaction should be based only on prima facie evidence. Before summoning the accused, the facts stated will have to be accepted as they appear on the very face of it. Sufficiency of evidence to hold accused guilty, merits of matter and defence pleas have to be examined at the stage of trial and not at the stage of issuance of process. Whether statement of a witness is hearsay and whether it is supported by "contemporaneous exposition" and whether it would fall under "res gestae" and whether it is admissible or not is to be seen only at the time of trial.

¶32

In the instant matter, the materials available on record go to show that the appellant very well knew that the injured belonged to SC/ST community. Furthermore, the offence took place in a field in day time in the presence of other persons also. There is also prima facie evidence on record that the injured was beaten by the appellant with the aid of lathi and he also hurled abuses in the name of her caste and threatened her for life. The injured lady of this case very well supported the prosecution case when interrogated by the Investigating Officer. The injury report of the injured is also available on record and the doctor has found injuries on the person of the injured in the form of complaint of pain and she was referred for x-ray. The informant of this case, who is the husband of the injured, has also corroborated the F.I.R. version. Hence, in this matter, as per the materials available on record, at this stage, it cannot be said that offences levelled against the appellant are not attracted. A prima facie case is made out against the appellant to proceed for trial. Further, to decide the pleas raised before this Court leading of evidence would be required, which can appropriately be done before the court concerned at appropriate Stage.

¶33

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarah Mathew vs. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases, (2014) 2 SCC 62 held that cognizance is taken when a Magistrate or Court applies his mind or takes judicial notice of an offence with a view to initiating criminal proceedings in respect of the offence which is said to have been committed. This is the special connotation acquired by the term "cognizance", and is given the same meaning wherever it appears in Chapter XXXVI as well.

¶34

Moreover, the view vented in Jagdish Ram vs. State of

¶35

Rajasthan and another, AIR 2004 SC 1734 by the Hon'ble Apex Court sets a reminder that taking cognizance of the offence is an area exclusively within the domain of a Magistrate. At this stage, the Magistrate has to be satisfied whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding and not whether there is sufficient ground for conviction. Whether the evidence is adequate for supporting the conviction, can be determined only at the trial and not at the stage of inquiry. At the stage of issuing the process to the accused, the Magistrate is not required to record reasons.

¶36

Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra Vaishya vs. State of U.P. and another, (2023) 17 SCC 615 has been pleased to observe that the first question that calls for an answer is whether it was at a place within public view that the appellant hurled caste related abuses at the complainant with an intent to insult or intimidate with an intent to humiliate him.

¶37

In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that there is no force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. The Court concerned did not err in taking cognizance into the matter and thereby to summon the accused / appellant to face trial for the offences made out prima facie. There is no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned order. The prayer made in the appeal is refused.

¶38

The criminal appeal being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶39

Order Date :- 4.4.2025 ss

¶40

Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Yashwant Singh v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Yashwant Singh v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

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