Allahabad High Court
Pradeep Kumar Verma And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 16 August, 2023
Bench: Sadhna Rani (Thakur)
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:164175
Court No. - 84
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 130 of 2023
Appellant :- Pradeep Kumar Verma And 4 Others
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Raj Kiran Chaudhary,Jai Prakash Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Gyan Prakash Singh,Sunil Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the opp. party no. 2 and perused the record.
This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 16.11.2022 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Varanasi in S.T. No. 178 of 2018, in case crime no. 843 of 2017, under sections 323, 504, 147 I.P.C. and 3(1)(dha) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, police station Sigra District Varanasi.
By the impugned order, the discharge application 'paper 13-kha' moved by the appellants was rejected.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the FIR was lodged on 7.12.2017 but neither in the FIR nor in the statement of the first informant or his injured friend any caste based word or caste based abuse is alleged to have been hurled against them by the appellants knowingly that they belong to SC/ST category or with intent to humiliate them because of their being SC/ST community. In the statement of Veena Chandra, there is no version of even hurling any abusive language against them by the appellants. After full investigation chargesheet appended at page '58' of the paper book was submitted by the Investigating Officer. In that chargesheet also there is no whisper of offence under SC/ST Act. As till the date of filing the chargesheet, x-ray report and x-ray plate of the injured persons were not received by the Investigating Officer, so the chargesheet was withheld. The X-ray report / x-ray plate were demanded from the injured persons. Later on taking additional statement of injured persons Veena Chandra and Kamlesh Chandra, a fresh chargesheet implicating the appellants under sections 3(1)(dha) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act was filed. In fact the first informant being the builder had a dispute regarding the land beneath the building wherein injured Kamlesh Chandra and his wife Veena Chandra used to live. The appellants are said to be the owners of the land. The first informant is the builder of the same building. There was a dispute between the builder Santosh Kumar Rana, the first informant and the appellants. When the appellants allegedly started thrashing the first informant Vijendra Rai, his friend Kamlesh Chandra and his wife Veena Chandra came to his rescue and that is why Kamlesh Chandra and Veena Chandra are said to have been thrashed by the appellants. As the appellants had no personal grudge against the injured persons, so there was no occasion to hurl caste based abuses to the injured persons, hence, the prayer is made accordingly.
Learned counsel for the opp. party no. 2 opposed the prayer and submitted that the appellants had come to this court by way of moving an application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. wherein they were directed to move bail application before the trial court. Further it is submitted that appellant Pradeep Kumar Verma is having criminal history of two cases, one case is of the year 2016, prior to the institution of the present case. It is also submitted that in the additional statements of both the injured persons, the allegation regarding SC/ST Act is there.
From the perusal of the record, it is very much clear that neither in the FIR, nor in the statements of the injured persons or the first informant, it has come that any caste based word was used or offence under sections of SC/ST Act was committed because of being the both injured persons of SC/ST community. The initial chargesheet was filed under section 323, 504 and 147 I.P.C. and it was only after filing of chargesheet when the x -ray report of the injured persons was sought, in the additional statement of Veena Chandra it has come that caste based wild abuses were used against them by the appellants. Thus, it is very much clear that witness Veena Chandra who in her statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. has not disclosed hurling of any abuse by the appellants in her additional statement, for the first time, she has stated that caste based abuses were used by the appellants. It is clear that the dispute was between the appellants and the first informant and when the appellants allegedly started thrashing the first informant his friend Kamlesh Chandra and his wife came to rescue him, so both Kamlesh Chandra and his wife Mina Chandra were also allegedly thrashed at the hands of the appellants. Initially there was no allegation of using caste based words in the statement of victim Veena Chandra and it was only in her additional statement after more than 8 months of the incident, for the first time, the allegation of using caste based abuses were levelled against the appellants. Caste based word used by the appellants do not exist in the FIR or in any initial statement of any of the witnesses. Otherwise also if any caste based word is considered to have been used by the appellants, there is no version on record that the caste based words or abuses were used intentionally to humiliate the injured persons belonging to a member of SC/ST community or knowingly that the injured persons belonged to scheduled caste and scheduled tribe community. In the opinion of the court section 3(1)(dha) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act cannot be said to be prima facie made out against the appellants. The trial court mistakenly relying upon the additional statement of victim Veena Chandra wherein, for the first time, this allegation regarding offence under section SC/ST had been made against the appellants, had taken the cognizance against the accused persons and when the discharge application was moved by the appellants on the basis of the statements of the first informant and the witnesess and evidence on record the discharge application of the appellants was rejected.
The impugned order regarding SC/ST Act suffers from manifest error of law. The appeal is partly allowed regarding section 3(1)(dha) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act. The impugned order dated 16.11.2022 is set aside regarding rejection of discharge application under sections 3(1)(dha) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act. The appeal with regard to sections 323, 504 and 147 I.P.C. is dismissed and the impugned order dated 16.11.2022 with regard to these sections is confirmed.
The appellants are discharged from the charges under sections 3(1)(dha) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act.
Order Date :- 16.8.2023
Gss
