Allahabad High Court
Sati Ram vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko ... on 17 May, 2024
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:37806 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1660 of 2024 Appellant :- Sati Ram Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko And 4 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Alok Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
2. By means of instant appeal preferred under Section 14-A(1) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short "SC/ST Act"), the appellant has assailed the order dated 26.04.2024 passed by the Special Judge SC/ST Act, Ambedkar Nagar (in short "trial court") in Sesstions Case No. 315/2022 arising out of Crime No. 484 of 2021, under Sections 323/504/506 IPC and 3(1)Da and 3(1)Dha of SC/ST Act, 1989, Police Station Akbarpur, District Ambedkar Nagar, whereby, the trial court rejected the application of the appellant/complainant preferred under Section 319 Cr.P.C., with a prayer to summon Anmol alias Sibbu Mishra son of Bajrangi Mishra and Kusum Mishra wife of Bajrangi Mishra. The relevant portion of order dated 26.04.2024 reads as under:-
"पत्रावली पेश हुई। पुकार पर अभियुक्त दिवाकर तिवारी की हाजिरी माफी प्रस्तुत। आज हेतु स्वीकृत।
वादी मुकदमा सतीराम द्वारा प्रस्तुत प्राथना पत्र कागज सं० 19ब अन्तर्गत धारा 319 दं०प्र०सं० पर वादी के विद्वान अधिवक्ता, विशेष लोक अभियोजक व अभियुक्तगण के विद्वान अधिवक्तागण को सुना गया तथा पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया गया।
वादी मुकदमा द्वारा प्रार्थनापत्र 19ब अंतर्गत धारा 319 द.प्र.सं. न्यायालय के समक्ष इस आशय का प्रस्तुत किया गया कि, प्रार्थी को मुल्जिम बजरंगी मिश्रा, कुसुम, अनमोल व दीवाकर ने जातिसूचक शब्दों से अपमानित करते हुए मारे पीटे व जान से मारने की धमकी दिये। प्रार्थी ने घटना के बावत न्यायालय में प्रस्तुत प्रार्थनापत्र अंतर्गत दारा-156-3 द.प्र.सं. पर आदेशानुसार प्रथम सूचना रिपोर्ट बजरंगी मिश्रा, कुसुम मिश्रा, अनमोल उर्फ सिब्बू लिपिक दिवाकर तिवारी के खिलाफ अंकित हुआ और विवेचक महोदय ने बिना प्रार्थी व उसके गवाहों का बयान लिए मनमानी ढंग से आरोप पत्र माननीय न्यायालय में प्रेषित कर दिया जिसमें मुल्जिम अनमोल उर्फ सिब्बू मिश्रा व कुसुम मिश्रा के विरूद्ध आरोपपत्र प्रेषित नहीं किया गया। पत्रावली साक्ष्य में नियत होने पर प्रार्थी का बयान हुआ जिसमें प्रार्थी ने साक्ष्य देते समय सभी मुल्जिमानों का नाम लिया है। ऐसे में अभियुक्तगण अनमोल उर्फ सिब्बू मिश्रा व कुसुम मिश्रा को तलब करने की याचना की गयी।
पत्रावली के परिशीलन से स्पष्ट है कि प्रस्तुत प्रकरण में वादी मुकदमा द्वारा न्यायालय में प्रार्थनापत्र 156-3 दं.प्र.सं. प्रस्तुत किया था जिस पर न्यायालय द्वारा पारित आदेश के अनुक्रम में अभियोग पंजीकृत किया गया। विवेचक द्वारा विवेचनोपरांत अभियुक्तगण बजरंगी मिश्रा व दिवाकर के विरूद्ध पर्याप्त साक्ष्य पाये जाने पर आरोपपत्र न्यायालय में प्रेषित किया गया तथा नामित अभियुक्तगण अनमोल उर्फ सिब्बू मिश्रा व कुसुम मिश्रा की नामजदगी गलत पायी गयी जिस कारण उनके विरूद्ध आरोपपत्र प्रेषित नहीं किया गया। पत्रावली के अवलोकन से विदित होता है कि विवेचक द्वारा केस डायरी के साथ वादी मुकदमा सतीराम व अभियुक्त बजरंगी प्रसाद मिश्र के मध्य हुए सुलहनामा की प्रति भी संलग्न किया गया है जिसके अवलोकन से विदित होता कि मार्कशीट व टी.सी.का विवाद पक्षकारों के मध्य था जिसके बावत पक्षकारों द्वारा सुलह समझौता किया गया था। विवेचक द्वारा प्रकरण में विवेचनोपरांत अभियुक्तगण बजरंगी प्रसाद मिश्रा व दिवाकर के विरूद्ध आरोप पत्र प्रेषित किया गया तथा अनमोल उर्फ सिब्बू व कुसुम मिश्रा की घटना में संलिप्तता न पाये जाने के कारण उसकी नामजदगी गलत पायी गयी।
वादी द्वारा अपनी जिरह में भी पक्षकारों के मध्य टी.सी. का विवाद होना बताया गया है। इस स्तर पर पत्रावली पर इतना पर्याप्त साक्ष्य नहीं है जिससे प्रस्तावित अभियुक्तगण की दोषसिद्धि की सम्भावना हो। अतः वादी मुकदमा द्वारा प्रस्तुत प्रार्थनापत्र खारिज किए जाने योग्य है।
आदेश उपरोक्तानुसार वादी मुकदमा द्वारा प्रस्तुत प्रार्थना पत्र 19ब अन्तर्गत धारा - 319 दं०प्र०सं० खारिज किया जाता है। पत्रावली वास्ते शेष साक्ष्य दिनांक 22.05.2024 को पेश हो।"
3. The order impugned dated 24.04.2024 passed by the trial court has been challenged on the following grounds:-
"A- Because the other accused named in the first information report those are play similar role in said crime with other charge-sheeted accused are liable to be tried.
B- Because against the opposite party no. 4 and 5, eye witness available on record. And victim and two other witnesses were specifically named the opposite party no. 4 and 5 in the said crime.
C- That the Victim has made specific allegation/charges against the proposed accused (respondent no. 4 and 5), in his statement under 161 Cr.P.C. as well as examination in chief and cross examination.
D- Because the Victim as well as two eye witness have made specific allegation/ charges against the proposed accused (respondent no. 4 and 5), in his statement under 161 Cr.P.C.
E- Because the statement made in examination in chief also constitutes "evidence" and the Court while exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. post com mencement of trial, need not wait for evidence against person proposed to be summoned, to be tested by cross examination.
F- Because the charge-sheeted/ accused (defendant no. 2 and 3) were failed to disprove any contention/ statement of the complainant/ Victim Sati Ram (P.W.-1) during cross examination. And much probability that the accused will be punished on the basis of statement and the cross examination of complainant.
G- Because the victim / Applicant (P.W.-1) specifically stated in his examination in chief that - vfHk0x.k ctjaxh] dqlqe] vueksy o fnokdj us feydj ?kVuk dks vUtke nh।"
H-Because the learned court below rejected the application under 319 Cr.P.C. of the complainant without due application of judicial mind and by ignoring the judgement of Hardeep Singh (Supra).
I- Because Hon'ble Apex Court also held that though only a prima facie case is to be established from evidence led before the court, not necessarily tested on the anvil of cross-examination, it requires much stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity. It is evident from the impugned order as well as the statement of P.W. 1 that the role of appellant has been deposed in the examination-in-chief before the trial court.
J- Because the said incident was occurred in open school premises and about more than 200 students were present there, but investigation officer didn't recorded there statement.
K-Because any material that has been received by the court after cognizance the statement before the trial commences can be utilized only for corroboration and to support the evidence recorded by the court to invoke the power u / s . 319 CrPC. (Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2014- 1 Scale 214 (5) Judges Bench) L- Because very purpose invoking section 319(1) CrPC. clearly shows that even persons who have been dropped by police during investigation, but against whom evidence showing their involvement of the offence come before the court are included in the expression' any person not being accused'. (Rakesh and another Vs State of Haryana (2001) 6 SCC 24) M- Because the investigation officer didn't perform his due duty nor taken C.D.R. of the mobile location of the respondent no. no. 4 and 5."
4. Based upon the aforesaid grounds, learned Counsel for the appellant advanced his submissions so as to entertain the present appeal and summon the opposite party nos. 4 and 5.
5. Learned A.G.A. on the other side opposed the present appeal. He submitted as under:-
(i) The incident is of 06.11.2020, which is apparent from the contents of FIR and from the statement of victim/complainant/appellant made before the court concerned as P.W.1, a copy which is annexed as Annexure No.3 and in view of the statement of the appellant/P.W.1 made before the trial court other date(s) i.e. 10.11.2020 and 11.11.2020 and the facts/allegations related to said dates are meaningless.
(ii) As per FIR, on 06.11.2020 the appellant met with accused/Bajrangi Mishra, Manager of Vidayalaya Indian College of Science, Madhyamik Vidayalaya, Shanti Nagar Akbarpur, District Ambedkar Nagar (in short 'Vidayalaya') in the premises of Vidayalaya at about 1 P.M. and there the Manager namely Bajrangi Mishra (accused) used abusive language and made casteist remarks and it also appears therefrom that on 06.11.2023 at alleged place of alleged incident only appellant and Manager/Bajrangi Mishra were present and on this date Kusum Mishra/wife of Bajrangi Mishra/respondent no.4 and Anmol Pal Mishra alias Sibbu Mishra son of Bajrangi Mishra/respondent no.5 were not present.
(iii) A perusal of statement of complainant/appellant as P.W.1, recorded before the trial court indicates that Bajrangi Mishra, Diwakar, Anmol alias Sibbu Mishra and Kusum Mishra, used abusive language and made casteist remarks and also assaulted the appellant brutally with 'fists' and 'Danda', however, there is no medical report to support this version and as per FIR on 06.11.2020, except accused Bajrangi Mishra, no one was present.
(iv) From a conjoint reading of contents of FIR and the statements of appellant/P.W.1, it appears that the dispute in fact relates to wages of the appellant and mark-sheet of the daughter of the appellant and when he demanded wages and mark-sheet, the same were not provided and therefore the appellant made the complaint and accordingly it can be inferred that to a civil dispute the appellant wants to give criminal colour.
6. Considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records.
7. Upon due consideration of aforesaid as also the documents on record particularly on conjoint reading of FIR (Annexure No.1) and statement of appellant/P.W.1 (Annexure No.3), this Court is of the firm view that on 06.11.2020, the alleged date of incident, Kusum Mishra (respondent no.4) and Anmol Pal Mishra (respondent no.5) were not present at the alleged place of alleged incident. As such, trial court has rightly rejected the application of the appellant and the present petition is liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. Cost made easy.
Order Date :- 17.05.2024 Jyoti/-