The Allahabad High Court dismissed a revision petition under the SC/ST Act, upholding the tribunal’s assessment of evidence as insufficient to summon the accused, and flagged the improper use of abusive language, directing all UP judges to maintain decorum in orders and statements.
The revisionist claimed she was assaulted and her Mangalsutra was forcibly taken by the opposite party at gunpoint. She filed a complaint under the SC/ST Act before the Special Judge, Varanasi. The tribunal dismissed the complaint, noting a lack of cogent evidence against the accused. Dissatisfied, the revisionist approached the Allahabad High Court seeking to overturn the dismissal.
The revisionist’s counsel argued that the tribunal ignored key evidence, including the complainant’s statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the testimonies of two other witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Counsel emphasized the injuries and snatching of the Mangalsutra as evidence warranting summons for the accused.
The State’s counsel submitted that the tribunal properly examined the evidence. The statements lacked coherence and corroboration, and mere allegations could not justify summoning the accused.
The High Court observed that the statements of the complainant and other witnesses lacked continuity and corroboration to establish a prima facie case. The injuries were simple and no evidence linked them to the alleged assailant. The Court noted, “The recording of filthy language and abusive words in judicial pleadings is unwarranted and inappropriate.” It emphasized that all judicial officers must avoid such language and ensure dignity in their orders and witness statements.
The Court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the Special Judge’s order. It directed circulation of the order to all district judges in Uttar Pradesh to ensure compliance and maintain proper judicial decorum in future proceedings.
Case Title: Santreepa Devi Vs. State Of Up and Others
Case No.: Criminal Revision No. - 4710 of 2024
Coram: Justice Harvir Singh
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Rajiv Chowdhury
Advocate for Respondent: G.A.
Picture Source :