Pappu vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 2302 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?In Chamber
 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2044 of 2020
 
Appellant :- Pappu
 
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Ashutosh Singh,Ayank Mishra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Dinesh Kumar Tripathi
 
AND
 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3571 of 2019
 
Appellant :- Sachin And Another
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Another
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Narendra Singh Chahar,Ayank Mishra,Pradeep Kumar Rai,Saurabh Trivedi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Dinesh Kumar Tripathi
 

 
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

Since, these criminal appeals are being filed arising by the accused persons arising out of case crime no.71 of 2019 under sections 147, 323, 452, 354, 352, 306 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Statiton-Hastinapur, District-Meerut.

From the perusal of the record, it is clear that Criminal Appeal No.2044 of 2020 was filed by Pappu s/o Banarsi whereas Criminal Appeal no.3571 of 2019 was filed by Sachin @Sattey and Sonu s/o Pappu. The bail application of Pappu was heard and decided by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Court No.2, Meerut while rejecting the first bail application no.2053 of 2019 vide order dated 09.05.2019 whereas bail application of Sachin and Sonu was rejected by the same learned Judge concern while deciding the bail application no.1862 of 2019 vide order dated 03.05.2019.

As mentioned above, all the three accused persons are named accused and are jointly challenging their distinct bail rejection order dated 03.05.2019 and 09.05.2019 respectively by filing two different criminal appeals under section 14(A)(2) of SC/ST Act.

Heard Sri Ayank Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Dinesh Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

Pleadings have been exchanged between the parties and the appeals are ripe for final submissions.

As mentioned above, all the appellants named above are the accused of case crime no.71 of 2019, Police Station-Hastinapur and for the sake of brevity and convenience, both the appeals are being decided by one and common judgment.

Facts of the case :-

Genesis of the case starts from lodging of the FIR by one Rahul Kem on 18.04.2019 for the incident of 15.04.2019 at 7:00 hours against eight named accused persons including the appellants namely Sachin, Sonu and Pappu. On a careful perusal of the contents of the FIR, it seems that all the accused persons belong to one and same family and they are inter se collaterals.

The informant belongs to scheduled caste community. It is asserted that they are probably the sole family belongs to the scheduled caste community in the village-Paltupuri, Police Station-Hastinapur, Meerut surrounds by one accused persons who are allegedly anti social elements belonging to "Dheewar" community. As per allegations made in the FIR, lodged on 18.04.2019, referring to the date of incident i.e. on 15.04.2019, the accused persons are muscle men and persons of cantankerous temperament. On 15.04.2019 around seven in the morning, informant's mother went to throw garbage in the open place, suddenly Gopal and Ravi came on the spot on the motorcycle and started teasing the lady, when resisted, they have committed marpeet with her. While, she was narrating the entire incident, suddenly all the accused persons who are closely related to Ravi and Gopal, raided the house of the informant to eliminate the informant and his family members and started hurling filthy abuses and taking the caste name in a derogatory way. This incident was committed by all the named accused persons. From the FIR, it is further mentioned that out of sheer frustration and fed up by day to day misbehaviour by Ravi and Gopal and his family members, informant's father Vedpal, informant's mother Rajviri and informant's sister Shivani have consumed some poisonous substance. It is also mentioned in the FIR that all the accused persons have compelled these persons to take these extreme step by consuming poisonous substance. Accordingly, her mother has lost her life and her father and sister are struggling for their life. On that post mortem report, learned counsel for the appellant submits that it was the deceased and the injured persons who themselves have consumed poisonous substance without any intervention or knowledge of the accused/appellants. They have never aided all his family members to take this drastic step. The essential ingredients of Section 306 IPC is completely missing in the FIR. The allegations are not at all confidence generating and sweeping and general allegations have been fastened against all the accused persons without relevant particulars. It is further argued by learned counsel for the appellants that the autopsy report of Rajviri dated 18.04.2019 demonstrably indicates that there are pores and holes in the prosecution story to the extent that it has been stated that all the accused persons have physically beaten the family members of the informant after barging into his house but there is no injury over the person of Rajviri.

The Court has occasion to peruse the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the injured Ms. Shivani Ken who in her 161 Cr.P.C. statement has clearly indicated that the accused persons were offensive since 2016 when they have lodged the FIR against the accused persons and the opponents too have managed to lodge the FIR against the family members of Ms. Shivani Ken, resultantly they had to compromise with her opponents and since then, she and her family members are the constant target of maltreatment, harassment and misbehaviour on account of their lower caste. On 10.04.2019 when she went to see her father, then too they have tortured her and harassed her When she went back to Delhi and on 15.04.2019, Ravi and others raided the house of the informant and assaulted her mother.

Thus, it has been mentioned in her 161 Cr.P.C. statement that from the last 3-4 years, she and her family members are constantly subject matter of harassment lowering the caste and out of sheer frustration and fed up by this regular teasing and torture, all the three persons consumed poisonous substance.In the 161 Cr.P.C. statement, she has taken the name of all the three accused persons for committing the act of offence against the family members. In 164 Cr.P.C. statement of Ms. Shivani Ken, she states that she is doing her B.Sc. Hons. in Chemistry and pursuing her IIIrd year course. She further states that in the village, her family is a lone family belonging to scheduled caste community. The named accused persons from her school days, used to tease and torture her by indecently touching her and sometimes, they have also tried to ravish her after overpowering her. On the fateful day, Ravi and Gopal has teased her mother and has taken her caste name in a derogatory way. As mentioned above, the family members of the informant and Ms. Shivani Ken is the constant target of misbehaviour and anyhow they are sailing their boat but as mentioned in the 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. statements, family members have never been treated as equal human being and left with no other option, they have taken this drastic step to self-immolate themselves. They have often extended threats to pour acid upon her.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that not a specific role has been attributed to the appellants. General and sweeping allegations have been fastened against all the family members. There is delay of three days in lodging of the FIR and the possibility of concoction cannot be ruled out. It is at the cause of repetition, it has been mentioned that sweeping and general role has been attributed to all the family members but fact remains that in the post mortem report, there is no injury over the person of the appellant.

Lastly, it has been contended that the appellants are young lad of 23-21 years whereas the deceased lady is aged about 45-50 years. Under these circumstances, it is highly unlikely that they would tease the lady of 45-50 years. It is further contended that the appellant-Sachin is a driver by profession and presently working in Goverment of Uttar Pradesh Scheme of 108 Ambulance Services posted at Dadri, Gautam Budh Nagar and was on duty on the date of occurrence. On this, plea of alibi has been pleaded by the counsel for the appellants.

In totality of circumstances, it has been urged by learned counsel for the appellants that in the absence of any specific allegations of teasing or harassment against the appellants, the appellants deserve to be bailed out.

Per contra, Sri Dinesh Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the bail application denying every arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant. It was contended by learned counsel for the complainant that not a single good reason has been whispered for falsely implicating the accused persons. The poor persons were target of castic and pungent remarks to the lady folks since 2016. Every passing day was curse for them. It is quite natural that the family members who are constant target of acidic innuendoes and insinuations, under these circumstances, to say that the informant and his family members are hyper-sensitive, is unswallowable proposition. So far as driver and ambulance are concerned, the plea of alibi is a weakest type of defence and cannot be appreciated at this stage.

In addition to this, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra Vs. State(Govt. of NCT of New Delhi) reported in (2009) 16 SCC 605, paragraph no.10, 11 and 14 of which are quoted hereinbelow :-

10.Section 306of the IPC reads as under:

"306. Abetment of suicide If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."

14. As per clause firstly in the said Section, a person can be said to have abetted in doing of a thing, who "instigates" any person to do that thing. The word "instigate" is not defined in theIPC. The meaning of the said word was considered by this Court in Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh4. Speaking for the three-Judge Bench, R.C. Lahoti, J. (as His Lordship then was) said that instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of "instigation", though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes "instigation" must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. Where the accused had, by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct, created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, in which case, an "instigation" may have to be inferred. A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow, cannot be said to be instigation."

Thus, taking the guidance from the aforesaid citation, where family members who are constant target of teasing, harassment in lowering the dignity in the society and the accused persons are not permitting the informant and his family members to live with honour and dignity and they are the subject matter of all sorts of harassment and sometime physical, it is quite natural that the family of the informant have got no other option but to take this extreme step by consuming poison. In this regard, 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Ms. Shivani Ken is significant which gives a broad picture of the incident and hence, I do not see any good reason to come to some conclusions in bailing out the appellants.

Accordingly, the aforesaid criminal appeals are hereby REJECTED.

The parties are required to extend their cooperation in early conclusion of trial.

Order Date :- 23.1.2023/Sumit S