HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J.
BIRENDRA TIWARI - Appellant
Vs.
STATE OF U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2057 of 2008
Decided On : 11-04-2019
Criminal Procedure Code 1973 – Section 374(2) – Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – S. 3(1)(x) – Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been filed by convict appellant – impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence has been assailed on the ground that the trial court failed to appreciate the facts and law placed before it. Neither conviction nor acquittal for offence punishable u/s 506 I.P.C. was there in the judgment. There was no evidence on record to prove the charges levelled against the appellant but a severe sentence, as above, was passed against the evidence on record, hence this appeal for setting aside the impugned judgment and sentence made therein – Held, Alleged occurrence took place when informant went at the house of accused in the morning where his ailing wife was in need of treatment but no treatment was offered, rather protest was lodged. Then under above situation this occurrence took place, which was not an intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace. Moreso, only two witnesses of fact are PW1 and PW2 and their testimonies are not consistent – There are material contradictions, exaggerations and embellishments. Hence the learned trial court failed to appreciate the facts and law and has wrongly passed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence made therein – This appeal merits its allowance. (Para 25, 26 and 27)
Facts of the Case:
Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been filed by convict appellant – impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence has been assailed on the ground that the trial court failed to appreciate the facts and law placed before it. Neither conviction nor acquittal for offence punishable u/s 506 I.P.C. was there in the judgment. There was no evidence on record to prove the charges levelled against the appellant but a severe sentence, as above, was passed against the evidence on record, hence this appeal for setting aside the impugned judgment and sentence made therein.
Finding of the Court:
Alleged occurrence took place when informant went at the house of accused in the morning where his ailing wife was in need of treatment but no treatment was offered, rather protest was lodged. Then under above situation this occurrence took place, which was not an intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace. Moreso, only two witnesses of fact are PW1 and PW2 and their testimonies are not consistent – There are material contradictions, exaggerations and embellishments. Hence the learned trial court failed to appreciate the facts and law and has wrongly passed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence made therein.
Result: Appeal allowed
Ram Krishna Gautam, J.
This Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been filed by convict appellant Birendra Tiwari against judgment and order dated 27.3.2008 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Fatehpur, in Special Sessions Trial No. 11 of 1999 (arising out of Case Crime No. 156 of 1996, u/s 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3(1)(x) SC/ST Act, P.S. Khaga, District Fatehpur) whereby convict appellant Birendra Tiwari has been convicted for offences punishable u/s 323, 504 I.P.C. and 3(1)(x) Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and has been sentenced with three months rigorous imprisonment for offence punishable u/s 323 I.P.C., three months rigorous imprisonment for offence punishable u/s 504 I.P.C. and six months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/- and in case of default in payment of fine one and half months additional imprisonment for offence punishable u/s 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. Heard Sri Kaushal Kishore Mishra, learned counsel for appellant, and Sri Ajit Ray, learned AGA for the State and perused the lower court's record.
3. The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence has been assailed on the ground that the trial court failed to appreciate the facts and law placed before it. Neither conviction nor acquittal for offence punishable u/s 506 I.P.C. was there in the judgment. There was no evidence on record to prove the charges levelled against the appellant but a severe sentence, as above, was passed against the evidence on record, hence this appeal for setting aside the impugned judgment and sentence made therein.
4. In brief the prosecution case was that F.I.R. (exhibit Ka-1) scribed by informant Dhankesh Kumar, son of Nanaku Ram, resident Village Sarsai Bujurg, Police Station Khaga, District Fatehpur, dated 10.5.1996 was submitted at P.S. Khaga with this contention that informant is a member of Scheduled Caste (Chamar). His medical shop was situated at G.T. Road, village Brahman within the area of Gram Panchayat Iskuri adjacent to Dwivedi Aata Chakki. At about 8.30 A.M. his compounder was present at his medical shop when Birendra (the present convict appellant) and his brother came at above shop and asked for some medicines including Glucose bottle and injections but the compounder was not aware of medicines, hence he refused to give above things, but the same were forcibly taken away by the appellant and that was protested by compounder. He was slapped with abuse that whenever doctor comes, he be sent to his residence. When informant came at his shop things were apprised to him. He went to the house of Birendra and asked as to why he had beaten his compounder and taken his medicines? Birendra, Surendra, his younger brother Siddhu and wife of Birendra attacked over him. He was badly beaten by hands, fists, shoes and sticks. He fell down on the ground. Then after they abused him by taking name of the caste "Chamar Jaban Ladata Hai" and threat for closing shop in future, otherwise to face firearm shot, was extended. The informant became unconscious, someone of village brought him in front of his shop. He was taken by Tempo to police station by few villagers, where report was got lodged. Investigation resulted in submission of charge sheet (Ext. Ka-7) against Birendra Tiwari, the present appellant, for offences punishable u/s 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. read with section 3(1)(x) SC/ST Act. Cognizance over which was taken on 3.8.1996. Offence u/s 3(1)(x) SC/ST Act was exclusively triable by Special Court, hence this was committed to the above Court by the Magistrate concerned.
5. Special Court under SC/ST Act, Fatehpur, after hearing learned public prosecutor as well as learned counsel for accused-appellant levelled charges vide order dated 5.9.2000 against Birendra Tiwari for offences punishable u/s 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. read with section 3(1)(x) SC/ST
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.