Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(All) 1243

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SURENDRA SINGH-I, J.
Raees And Others – Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. and Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.7437 of 2023
Decided on : 31-10-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sanjay Singh
For the Respondent: G.A., Girish Tiwari

The court must evaluate the material and documents on record to determine if a prima facie case exists for the accused to stand trial, and strong suspicion must be founded on material that can be translated into evidence at the trial stage.

Headnote:
Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act - Framing of Charges - 14-A(1) of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - 147, 420, 406, 342, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of Act No. 33 of 1989
Fact of the Case:

The appellant-accused were charged with various offenses including criminal breach of trust, abuse, and threats against the informant, who belonged to the SC community. The trial court rejected the discharge application and directed framing of charges against the appellants.
Finding of the Court:

The trial court rejected the discharge application of the appellants and directed framing of charges against them, except for the charge of criminal breach of trust against one of the appellants, Raees.
Issues: The main issue was whether there was sufficient ground to frame charges against the appellants for the alleged offenses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles laid down in various Supreme Court judgments to determine whether there was a prima facie case against the accused, considering the evidence and witness statements.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed in part, with the modification regarding framing of charge u/s 406 I.P.C. against the appellant-accused, Raees. The trial court's decision to reject the discharge application and direct framing of charges against the other appellants was upheld.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Sri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Girish Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This criminal appeal has been filed u/s 14-A(1) of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, against order dated 01.05.2023 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST) (PA) Act, Rampur. By the impugned order, the trial court has rejected the discharge application u/s 227 Cr.P.C. filed by the appellants-accused.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that by passing the impugned judgment and order, the trial court has committed a manifest error and has not considered the documentary and oral evidence filed with the charge-sheet and the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants-accused. It has also been submitted that since no amount of money has been transferred in the account of appellants-accused nor any fraudulent or dishonest inducement has been made by them, therefore, offence u/s 406 or 420 I.P.C. is not made out. It has also been submitted that the appellants are illiterate persons and they had no knowledge about the caste of the informant/respondent no. 2, Smt. Geeta Katariya, therefore, no offence u/s 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (PA) Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act No. 33 of 1989’) against them is made out. It has also been submitted that there is no medical report regarding the injury report received by respondent no. 2 or any of her companion in the occurrence. Therefore, offence u/s 323 I.P.C. is not made out.

4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for respondent no. 2/informant have opposed the appeal and have stated that considering the averments made in the first information report and the statements of the witnesses recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. as well as documents produced with the charge, there is sufficient ground to frame charge against the appellants-accused.

5. The trial court directed to frame charges against the appellant-accused, Raees, in Special Case No. 30 of 2022, State of U.P. Vs. Raees and others arising out of Case Crime No. 18 of 2022 u/s 147, 420, 406, 342, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of Act No. 33 of 1989 and against appellants-accused, Jamshed, Smt. Priya, Smt. Parmeen, Anjum, Afsar Hussain u/s 147, 342, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of Act No. 33 of 1989, Police Station-Azeem Nagar, District- Rampur.

6. The prosecution case in brief is that informant, Smt. Geeta Katariya, wife of Tekchand Katariya, resident of village-Krishna Nagar, Badapur, District-Bijnor, submitted a written report on 20.01.2022 at concerned police station to the effect that she is engaged in the business of property dealing. In 2017, appellant-accused, Raees along with Islam son of Asgar visited her residence and on the pretext that he needed money for the marriage of his sister, offered to sell his 7 bigha land situated in Aliganj. The bargain for the purchase of the land was settled for 15 lakhs per bigha. The informant paid Rs.1,00,000/-through her colleague, Kamran Khan. After 3-4 days, on the request of accused, Raees, he paid Raees money to purchase the vehicle, Bolero. The informant got Bolero purchased from Haldwani, payment whereof amounting to Rs.4 lakhs was made by Naved Khan from his account, two lakhs by Kamran Khan through ATM machine in the account of Mahindra Company and Rs.2,50,000/-was paid by Kamran Khan in cash. Thereafter, after 10-15 days, appellant-accused, Raees came with Islam and took Rs.1,10,000/-from the informant. On different dates on the direction of the informant, Shakhawat Hussain son of Fida Hussain and Nikhil Kumar Sharma alias Deepu son of Shiv Shankar Sharma paid Rs.2,00,000/-, Shakhawat Hussain aforesaid and Vilayat Hussain son of Fida Hussain paid Rs.3,00,000/-and by Vilayat Hussain aforesaid paid Rs.4,00,000/-to appellant-accused, Raees in the presence of Islam. Thus, she paid a total of about Rs.17,10,000/-to appellant