Ramkesh Ram v. Ramawadh Gupta and
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:65408 Court No. - 80 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8832 of 2024 Appellant :- Ramawadh Gupta And 2 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Shivasare Counsel for Respondent :- Dewarshi Kumar Rai,G.A.
Legal Reasoning
12. P.W.1 and P.W.2 in their statement under sections 202 Cr.P.C. have made categorical statement that some neighbouring persons had also seen the occurrence and tried to mitigate the matter. So far as the absence of injury report is concerned, since the injured sustained only simple injuries in this matter, the medical examination of the injured was not a must. Prima facie the primary elements to establish the offence under the SC/ST Act are established. It is pertinent to mention that at the stage of summoning the accused, the presentation of a detailed evidence is on the part of the complainant and also to pass a detailed order on the part of the court concerned is never required. 13. It is trite law that at the stage of taking cognizance and summoning the accused, the Magistrate / Court dealing with the matter is required to apply judicial mind only with a view to take cognizance of the offence to find-out as to whether prima-facie case has been made out to summon the accused or not. The Court at this stage is not required to analyze the material on record to find-out as to whether the matter may lead to conviction or not. Sufficiency of materials for the purpose of conviction is not required. It is also settled that even when there are materials raising strong suspicion against the accused, the Court will be justified in taking cognizance and summoning the accused. The Court / Magistrate is not required to analyze the evidence on merits but to scrutinize the evidence only with a view as to whether sufficient grounds exist to initiate criminal proceedings in respect of the offence which is said to have been committed (Vide : R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283). 14. Further, what is 'sufficient ground' for proceeding to issue summons and warrant has been clarified in Nirmaljit Singh Vs. State of West Bengal, (1973) 3 SCC 753 and it is held therein that the words "sufficient ground" used in Section 203 have been construed to mean the satisfaction that a prima facie case is made out against the person accused by the evidence of witnesses entitled to a reasonable degree of credit and not sufficient ground for the purpose of conviction. 15. It is also not out of the scope of subject here that an order passed to summon the accused is an opinion of the Magistrate and to pass a detailed order or to state the grounds of his satisfaction in detail is not required from a Magistrate, however the summoning order must be a speaking order. 16. In State of Gujarat v. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta, (2019) 20 SCC 539, the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated that for issuance of summons strict standard of proof of satisfaction of the Magistrate regarding sufficiency of ground(s) to proceed in the matter is not required and such satisfaction should be based only on prima facie evidence. Before summoning the accused, the facts stated will have to be accepted as they appear on the very face of it. Sufficiency of evidence to hold accused guilty, merits of matter and defence pleas have to be examined at the stage of trial and not at the stage of issuance of process. Whether statement of a witness is hearsay and whether it is supported by "contemporaneous exposition" and whether it would fall under "res gestae" and whether it is admissible or not is to be seen only at the time of trial. 17. In the instant matter, the materials available on record go to show that the appellants very well knew that the injured belonged to SC/ST community. Furthermore, the offence took place outside the house of the informant/injured in the presence of other persons also. There is also prima facie evidence on record that the injured was beaten by the appellants and they also hurled abuses in the name of his caste and threatened him for life. The informant of this case very well supported the prosecution case when interrogated by the Investigating Officer. The informant of this case has also corroborated the F.I.R. version. Hence, in this matter, as per the materials available on record, at this stage, it cannot be said that offences levelled against the appellant are not attracted. A prima facie case is made out against the appellant to proceed for trial. Further, to decide the pleas raised before this Court leading of evidence would be required, which can appropriately be done before the court concerned at appropriate Stage. 18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that there is no force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. The Court concerned did not err in taking cognizance into the matter and thereby to summon the accused / appellants to face trial for the offences made out prima facie. There is no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned order. The prayer made in the appeal is refused. 19. The criminal appeal being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed. Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Order Date :- 23.4.2025 / ss
Arguments
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the respondent no.2 / informant and perused the entire record. 2. This Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A (1) of The Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short 'the SC/ST Act') has been preferred with the prayer to set- aside the cognizance / impugned order dated 13.3.2024 passed by learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Azamgarh whereby the learned trial court summoned the appellants in Complaint Case No.102 of 2023 (Ramkesh Ram Vs. Ramawadh Gupta and 2 others) under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha), 3(2)5Ka of the SC/ST Act, Police Station Bardah, District Azamgarh. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. F.I.R. in this case was lodged belatedly and there is no plausible explanation offered by the prosecution regarding the delay. It is further submitted that the essential ingredients to constitute the offence under the SC/ST Act are completely missing in this case. No offence under the SC/ST Act is made out from the averments made in the F.I.R. itself. It is also submitted that the I.O. of the case has proceeded to record the statements of the informant of this case as well as the witnesses and from the perusal of their statements no offence at all is made out against the appellant. It is also submitted that the learned Special Judge was not competent to take cognizance in this matter. It is also submitted that the F.I.R. lodged in this case is purely an abuse of process of the Court. 4. It is also submitted that the mandatory provisions of law have not been taken into account of by the learned Special Judge while taking cognizance of the offence and passing the summoning order against the appellant. The impugned order has been passed without applying the judicial mind and it is illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of law. 5. Another limb of argument is that the court concerned totally discarded the fact that the incident was not happened at a public place within the public view and there is no independent witness of the occurrence. It is also submitted that the medical evidence also was not in consonance with the prosecution case but the court concerned ignored this fact. It is also submitted that there was no cogent and reliable evidence in this matter but the learned court concerned again failed to consider this fact and in an arbitrary manner, cognizance was taken into the offences alleged to be committed by the appellant and further to pass summoning order against the appellant. 6. The next argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the I.O. of this case collected absolutely no evidence to the effect that intentional insult or intimidation was made by the appellant. It is further submitted that there is not even an iota of evidence on record as collected by the I.O. that the appellant committed the alleged offence for the simple reason of the injured being a member of SC/ST community. It is also submitted that the appellant never threatened the injured for life and no independent witness came forward to support the prosecution version in this respect. 7. It is next submitted that the entire proceeding is nothing but abuse of process of law. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the appellant have also been placed forth before the Court. Lastly, it is submitted that the impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. 8. Per contra, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the respondent no.2 vehemently opposed the appeal and it has been submitted that the trial court on the basis of the evidence recorded under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. available on record and other materials, passed the impugned summoning order, which is a legal and justified order. It is also submitted that the incident in this matter happened outside the house of the complainant and it was seen by Sheela Devi and Sonvarsha Devi and several other neighbourers. The appellants not only made an assault upon the complainant but also hurled abuses of caste related remarks like "chamariya saley" and also threatened for dire consequences. Hence, the essential ingredients to establish the offence under Sections 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha), 3(2)5Ka of the SC/ST Act and Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC are clearly made out against the appellants. Since the police did not take any action in this matter, the complainant could not be medically examined through police. It is also submitted that the appeal has no force. The orders taking cognizance and summoning the appellants as well have been passed keeping in view the relevant legal norms by the learned Special Judge which need not any interference. There is no illegality in the impugned order and the learned trial court applying its judicial mind passed the summoning and the cognizance order as well. It is further submitted that the appellant is not entitled for any relief, thus, the present appeal may be dismissed. 9. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order. 10. As per case of the complainant, he belongs to SC/ST community. The appellants / accused have animosity with the complainant on account of some election dispute and they often use to harass the complainant and his family members. On 2.6.2023 at 6:00 p.m., the accused Ramawadh Gupta, Sanjay Gupta and Deepak Gupta came to the house of the complainant and by hurling abuses with case related remarks like "chamariya saley", made an assault upon him with kicking and fisting and also threatened for dire consequences. Sheela Devi and Sonvarsha Devi seen the occurrence. In his statement under section 200 Cr.P.C., the complainant has fully corroborated the complaint version and same is found in the statement of P.W.1 Sheela Devi and P.W.2 Sonvarsha Devi recorded under section 202 Cr.P.C. Some documentary evidence like copy of the application sent to Superintendent of Police with registry receipt, caste certificate, photographs, affidavit were also submitted by the complainant before the trial court. 11. On the basis of sufficient evidence, the accused persons were summoned under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3(1) (da), 3(1)(dha), 3(2)5Ka of the SC/ST Act. The main contention made by the learned counsel for the appellants is that there was no independent person to witness the occurrence and the two ladies, who are said to be the eyewitnesses of the incident, are the family members of the complainant and no other independent witness of the locality has been named or produced by the complainant.