SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(All) 27940

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
DHARMENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U.P – Respondent
CRLA 3566/2011



Advocates:
['RAGHVENDRA PRAKASH', '', 'SUBHASH CHANDRA YADAV', 'GOVT ADVOCATE']

Court No. - 50

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3566 of 2011

Appellant :- Dharmendra Singh And Others

Respondent :- State of U.P.

Counsel for Appellant :- Raghvendra Prakash,Subhash

Chandra Yadav

Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate

Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.

Heard Sri Subhash Chandra Yadav, learned counsel for the

appellant and Sri Ashish Mani Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the

State assisted by Sri Raghav Ram, State Law Officer.

The instant criminal appeal has been preferred by accused-

appellants against judgment and order dated 20.5.2011 passed

by Addl. Session Judge, Court No. 2 Azamgarh, in S.T. No. 97

of 2007 arising out of Case Crime No. 107 of 2005, under

Sections 147, 323, 452, 506(2) IPC, P.S. Tahbarpur, District

Azamgarh.

In nutshell, the prosecution case appearing from the material on

record is that informant Badami, wife of Shyam Narayan, r/o

Khajepur, P.S. Tahbarpur, District Azamgarh moved an

application on 18.3.2005 before the court of A.C.J.M., Court

No. 12, Azamgarh under Section 15(3) Cr.P.C. stating that on

6.4.2005, she is "harijan" by caste, her co-villagers

Dharmendra, Arvind, Sintu, Mahendra and Munna came to her

house and started making filthy and unlawful assembly at

around 8:00 am and hurled filthy abuses on her and also

insulted her by abusing her by caste. They also threatened her to

make a settlement in criminal case pending in the court of

A.D.J., Court No. 2, Azamgarh, otherwise she would be killed.

When she had run inside her house to save herself, they

committed house trespass and assaulted the informant and her

husband by kicks and fists. Incident was witnessed by Suresh

and others. Accused persons had threatened informant and her

husband with life. She approached police station for lodging of

an F.I.R. but head constable refused to lodge an F.I.R..

Informant had got her injury inspected at District Hospital

Azamgarh and moved an application before S.S.P. through

registered post on 11.3.2005 but no action was taken by police,

therefore, she was compelled to approach the court for lodging

of F.I.R. and investigation of the case by police. F.I.R. was

lodged on the order of court on 9.5.2005, under Sections 147,

452, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act, at

P.S. concerned against five named accused persons. Police

investigated the case and filed charge sheet before the court of

magistrate. Learned magistrate took congnizance of the offence

and designated Special Court i.e. Additional Sessions Judge,

Court No. 2 for trial.

Learned trial court framed charges against accused persons

Dharmendra, Arvindra, Sintu, Munna and Mahendra for offence

under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506(2) IPC and 3(1)(x) of SC/ST

Act. Accused persons denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

Prosecution examined PW-1 Badami, PW-2 Shyam Narayan

(Husband of informant), PW-3 Phool chand as author of chick

F.I.R. and extract of G.D. of registration of case at P.S.

concerned on 9.5.2005, PW-4 Rajendra Prasad, Chief

Pharmacist, who proved injury report of informant as Ext. Ka-6,

PW-5 S. Anand (C.O) who investigated the case and he proved

site plan of the place of incident as Ext. Ka-7 and charge sheet

as Ext. Ka-8. Informant (PW-1) had proved application

purportedly sent to S.S.P., Azamgarh for lodging of F.I.R. as

Ext. ka-1 and the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as

Ext. Ka-2 and the affidavit filed in support of application as

Ext. Ka-3, whereas PW-3 Phool Chand proved chick F.I.R. as

Ext. Ka-4 and GD entry of registration of case as Ext. Ka-5.

After conclusion of evidence, learned trial court recorded

statements of accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in

which accused had stated that they had neither assaulted the

injured or her husband nor any case was proceeding against

them. They also stated that statement of PW-1 and PW-2 during

trial is false. They also stated that injury

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top