Shivakant Yadav And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 8230 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 77
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2786 of 2021
 

 
Appellant :- Shivakant Yadav And 4 Others
 
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Awadhesh Kumar Yadav
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Anil Kumar Ojha,J.

Ref: Crl. Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 1 of 2021.

Heard Sri Awadhesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants/appellants, learned AGA for State and perused the record.

Learned AGA proposes not to file objection/counter affidavit against the delay condonation application.

The cause shown for delay in filing this appeal is found to be sufficient.

The application is allowed.

The delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

Order on appeal.

This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 7.12.2020 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sant Kabir Nagar in Special Case No. 444 of 2020 (State Vs. Sadanand Yadav @ Tempo Yadav and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 194 of 2020, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 452, 427, I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)Da, 3(1) Dha, SC/ST, Act, P.S.- Mehdawal, District- Sant Kabir Nagar, whereby the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sant Kabir Nagar has taken cognizance against the appellants.

Submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that the learned Special Judge, SC/ST has passed cognizance order in a mechanical manner on printed proforma and without application of judicial mind. The first information report is frivolous and concocted and the same has been levelled due to ill will by the informant only to implicate the appellants. Appellants are fully innocent and they have committed no offence as alleged by the prosecution. They have been implicated owing to election enmity and local politics. No offence is made out against the appellants. Hence, cognizance order dated 7.12.2020 be quashed.

Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the appeal and submitted that witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. have supported the prosecution case. There is injury report of Basanti Devi, Sandhya Devi and Reena Devi on record.

Considered the submissions put forth by learned counsel for the parties.

Facts raised by learned counsel for the appellants are subject matter of evidence. At this stage, it cannot be held that injury reports of Basanti Devi, Sandhya Devi and Reena Devi are artificial and statement of witnesses is unworthy of credence.

In view of the above facts and circumstances, appeal has no merits and is dismissed in limine.

Order Date :- 19.7.2021

CS/-