The High Court dismissed the criminal appeal preferring retrospective application of the 2016 amendment. The court held the case is covered under pre-amendment law as per Khuman Singh, rejecting the appellant's submissions.
Crime Appeal No.2120 of 2019 rejected; original judgment of Special Judge affirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2120 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-42 Year-2012 Thana- SC/ST District- Sheikhpura
======================================================
SHARDA DEVI Wife of Late Vishnu Choudhary @ Bishni Chy Resident of Village - Pinjari, P.O.- Lodhipur, P.S.- Barbigha, District- Sheikhpura
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Amish Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sadanand Paswan ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI ORAL ORDER
8 23-09-2019 Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned APP.
Instant appeal has been preferred at the instance of appellant/informant having been provided with legal assistance by the High Court Legal Committee by appointing Sri. Amish Kumar, learned counsel, figuring in the panel of High Court Legal Committee.
Appellant is aggrieved by the judgment dated 11.01.2019 by Special Judge, SC/ST (POA)Act in connection with Sessions Trial No. 24/2016 arising out of Sheikhpura Harijan PS Case No. 42/2012 whereby and whereunder, appellant has been found aggrieved on account of finding so
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2120 of 2019(8) dt.23-09-2019 2/3
recorded by the learned lower court releasing the respondents No. 2 and 3 for an offence punishable under Section 341, 323, 504/34 of the IPC giving benefit under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act while disbelieving the prosecution version relating to Section 354 of the IPC as well as 3(i)(x) of the SC/ST(POA) Act.
The occurrence is of the dated 27.09.2012. The scenario has changed after 2016 Amendment. Learned counsel for the appellant has tried to convince that the Amendment should be taken up in retrospective manner and in the aforesaid background, it be presumed that informant belonged to a member of SC/ST was subjected to atrocity and in the aforesaid background, there would have been application of Section 3 of the SC/ST (POA) Act and to justify the same referred (2018)1 SCC 742 [Asharfi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh].
Learned APP opposed the same.
Pre Amendment existing law relating to SC/ST (POA)
Act has been considered in the case of Khuman Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh in Cr. Appeal No. 1283/2019 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 6647 of 2018 and the finding so recorded by the learned lower court is duly covered thereby.
Accordingly, instant appeal lacks merit and is
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2120 of 2019(8) dt.23-09-2019 3/3
accordingly, rejected.
(Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J)
perwez
U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the 2016 amendment to the SC/ST (POA) Act should be applied retrospectively to the facts of the case.
Whether the posture of the case is covered under the pre-amendment law as explained in Khuman Singh v. State of MP.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Asharfi vs. State of Uttar PradeshReferred¶20
(2018) 1 SCC 742 [Asharfi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh] · Who else cites this
Khuman Singh v. State of Madhya PradeshRelied on¶22
Khuman Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Sharda Devi
The State of Bihar
Kaushal Singh
Milan Singh
Aditya Kumar Trivedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
