High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 88 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 9092 of 2022 Appellant :- Ajay @ Raggu Yadav And 4 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Dhirendra Bahadur Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Shiv Kumar Singh Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and learned AGA for the State. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants under section 14 A (1) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred as SC/ST Act) against the summoning order dated 21.09.2022, passed by the learned Special Judge, (SC/ST(P.A.) Act), Jhansi, in S.T. No.726 of 2022 (State vs. Ajay @ Raggu Yadav and others), Case Crime No.129 of 2022, under Sections 147, 323, 324, 504, 506 IPC and 3(2)5 Ka of SC/ST Act, P.S. Mauranipur, District Jhansi, whereby, the appellants / accused have been summoned for aforesaid offences.
Legal Reasoning
3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the appellants that
Decision
the impugned order is against facts and law and thus, liable to be set aside. The first information report of this case has been lodged by respondent No.2 making false and baseless allegations. The first information report was got lodged by moving an application under Section 156 (3) CrPC. In the first information report, the informant has stated that accused- appellants have thrown some acid on his body but during investigation, concerned doctor has stated that injuries sustained by informant were caused by some chemical. Further, the wife of informant has stated in her statement that the accused persons have thrown some powder at the injured. Learned counsel submitted that there are material contradictions and infirmities in the prosecution version and thus, no prima facie case is made out. The informant has sustained merely simple injuries. It is further submitted that in fact earlier a raid was conducted by Electricity Department in the premises of respondent No.2/informant regarding theft of electricity and that appellants are family members of village Pradhan and they have been falsely implicated due to that reason. Referring to the facts of the matter, it was submitted that no prima facie case is made out against appellants and thus, impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4. Learned AGA and learned counsel for respondent No.2 have opposed the appeal and argued that informant is a villager and he cannot make difference between acid and chemical and thus, the fact that in the first information report, he has stated that acid was thrown on his body but concerned doctor has stated that injuries were caused by some chemical, cannot be given any importance, particularly, when the informant has sustained injuries and as per the concerned doctor the same were caused by some chemical. The minor contradictions pointed out by learned counsel for appellants, cannot be considered at this stage. All the appellants are named in the first information report. During investigation, the informant and other witnesses have made statements regarding involvement of appellants in the alleged incident. It is further submitted that the appellants have been summoned by the court below by considering all relevant facts and material on record and that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. 5. I have considered rival submissions and perused record. 6. It is well settled that at the stage of cognizance and at the stage of issuing process to the accused, the Magistrate / Court has to be satisfied that there is sufficient ground for proceeding. The court has to consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding and not whether there is sufficient ground for conviction. At the stage of issuing the process to the accused, the Magistrate is not required to record reasons, particularly when the cognizance is being taken on the basis of report filed by the police after investigation, under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. In S.K. Sinha, Chief Enforcement Officer v. Videocon International Limited and Ors. MANU/SC/7011/2008 : (2008) 2 SCC 492, it was held that taking cognizance has no esoteric or mystic significance in criminal law and it connotes that a judicial notice is taken of an offence, after application of mind. Taking of cognizance is thus a condition precedent for holding a valid trial. In M/s. India Carat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka MANU/SC/0349/1989: 1989(26) ACC 280 (SC), the Supreme Court has observed that Magistrate can take into account statements of witnesses examined by Police during investigation, take cognizance of offence complained of, order to issue a process to accused. 7. In Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda and others (2015) 12 SCC 420, it was held as under:- "21. Under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C, the Magistrate has the advantage of a police report and under Section 190(1)(c) Cr.P.C., he has the information or knowledge of commission of an offence. But The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. The application of mind has to be indicated by disclosure of mind on the satisfaction. Considering the duties on the part of the Magistrate for issuance of summons to accused in a complaint case and that there must be sufficient indication as to the application of mind and observing that the Magistrate is not to act as a post office in taking cognizance of the complaint, under Section 190(1)(a) Cr.P.C., he has only a complaint before him. The Code hence specifies that "a complaint of facts which constitute such offence". Therefore, if the complaint, on the face of it, does not disclose the commission of any offence, the Magistrate shall not take cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) Cr.P.C. The complaint is simply to be rejected." 8. Thus, in so far as taking cognizance based on the police report is concerned, the Magistrate/ court has the advantage of the charge sheet, statement of witnesses and other evidence collected by the police during the investigation. For issuance of process against the accused, only it has to be seen whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. At the stage of issuance of process, the Court is not required to weigh the evidentiary value of the materials on record. The Court must apply its mind to the allegations in the charge sheet and the evidence produced and satisfy itself that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused. The Court is not to examine the merits and demerits of the case and not to determine the adequacy of the evidence for holding the accused guilty. The Court is also not required to embark upon the possible defenses. Likewise, 'possible defences' need not be taken into consideration at the time of issuing process unless there is an ex- facie defence such as a legal bar or if in law the accused is not liable. In this connection a reference may also be made to case of Nupur Talwar v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (2012)11 SCC465. 9. In the instant case, perusal of record shows that the respondent No.2 has lodged first information report against appellants, alleging that on 25.02.2022 at about 08.00 AM, they have abused the informant by using caste indicative words and thereafter they have assaulted him and they have also thrown acid upon him and resultantly the informant has sustained injuries. In injury report of the injured, seven injuries have been shown on his body. It is correct that the concerned doctor has stated that said injuries were not caused by acid but the same were caused by some chemical, but this inconsistency cannot be termed material. In fact the injuries sustained by injured, also go to support the prosecution version. Minor contradictions in the statements of witnesses, examined during investigation, cannot be considered at this stage. On material particulars, the informant and other witnesses have supported the prosecution version. In view of allegations made in the first information report and material collected during investigation, coupled with injury report of injured, it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out against appellants. The court below has considered all relevant facts of the matter and summoned the appellants vide impugned order dated 21.09.2022. Considering the material on record, it cannot be said that there is any illegality or perversity in the impugned summoning order and thus, no case for quashing of the impugned summoning order is made out and thus, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 10. However, considering facts of the matter it is directed that in case appellants appear/ surrender before the Court below within a period of three weeks from today and apply for bail, their bail application shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with settled law. 11. With aforesaid observations the appeal is dismissed. Order Date :- 20.1.2023 Neeraj Digitally signed by :- Digitally signed by :- NEERAJ KUMAR SINGH NEERAJ KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad