Allahabad High Court
Bechu Ram vs State Of U.P. And 7 Others on 10 May, 2023
Bench: Mohd. Faiz Khan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:101128
Court No. - 81
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3071 of 2023
Appellant :- Bechu Ram
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Shyam Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Arun Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.
Heard Sri Shyam Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Sri Arun Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 to 8, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
The instant appeal under Section 14-A(1) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant, Bechu Ram, with the prayer to set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 17.1.2023, passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Mirzapur in Complaint Case No.33 of 2021 (Bechu Ram vs. Dinesh Singh alias Bodar and others), under Sections 323, 504, 427 IPC and Section 3(1) (d) 3(1) (dh) of S.C./S.T. Act, P.S. Chunar, District Mirzapur thereby acquitting the opposite party nos.2 to 8 for the offence of under Sections 323, 504, 427 IPC, P.S. Chunar, District Mirzapur.
Learned counsel for the appellant while drawing the attention of this Court towards the impugned order whereby only two accused persons, namely, Dinesh Kumar Singh @ Bodar and Pappu Singh have been summoned to face trial vehemently submits that the trial court has committed manifest illegality in appreciating the facts and evidence presented by the complainant and his witnesses and though the commission of offences was emerging against the other accused persons also, the trial court choses only to summon the two accused persons without assigning any reason. Thus, while allowing the appeal filed by the appellant/complainant, the summoning order be suitably modified, accordingly.
Learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 to 8 vehemently opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant/complainant on the ground that the special court after discussing all the aspects of the matter and considering the statement of the witnesses has summoned the accused persons against whom sufficient grounds were emerging and no illegality in this regard has been committed by the special court by passing the impugned summoning order.
Learned AGA also supported the impugned order.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is transpired that the trial court while summoning the two accused persons by passing the impugned order had taken into consideration the statement of the complainant as well as of his witnesses and also the injury report of injured persons and has found sufficient grounds to summon only accused persons Dinesh Kumar Singh @ Bodar and Pappu Singh. Having regard to the provisions as contained under Section 202 Cr.P.C. the duty of the special court or the Magistrate, as the case may be, is to hold an inquiry in order to assess sufficient grounds on the basis of which the accused persons against whom prima facie case is emerging may be summoned. Having perused the summoning order passed by the special court and the statement of the complainant and his two witnesses as well as the allegations as levelled in the complaint and keeping in view the probability of the commission of offences, I do not find any illegality so far as the impugned summoning order is concerned. In result, the appeal appears to be devoid of any force and is hereby dismissed.
However, the appellant is not remediless as he may move an inappropriate application for summoning other accused persons, if so advised, at an appropriate stage under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
Order Date :- 10.5.2023
m.a.
