1

Reserved on 09.11.2021

Delivered on 26.11.2021

Court No. - 87

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3373 of 2021

Appellant :- Kalpana Bharti

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Counsel for Appellant :- Sudhir Kumar (Chandraul)

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Imran Khan,Javed Husain Khan

Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.

This is criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) of Scheduled Caste and

the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the

judgement and order dated 12.11.2020 passed by the Special Judge SC/ST

(P.A.) Act/Special Judge (D.A.A. Act), Chitrakoot in Complaint Case No. 43

of 2020 (Kalpana Bharti Vs. Shahroj Fatima and others), Police Station

Kotwali Karvi, District Chitrakoot.

By the impugned order the lower court summoned the opposite party

no. 2 – Mohd. Tahir Siddiqui for trial under Sections 354, 323, 504, 506

I.P.C. and 3 (1) (r) (s) S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, 1989 and opposite party nos. 3 –

Shahroj Fatima and opposite party no. 4 – Dabeer Ahmad for the trial under

Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3 (1) (r) (s) S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, 1989.

Filtering out the unnecessary details the case of the appellant in short

compass is that the appellant Kalpana Bharti moved an application under

Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. in the lower court, which was registered as

complaint case. The allegations in the complaint were that the complainant

belongs to scheduled caste Chamar community. On 24.11.2019 at about 7.00

p.m. with some personal work she went to Kali Devi Chauraha old market

Karvi where she met Shahroj Fatima who was previously known to her. She

acknowledged that her uncle Tahir did wrong with the complainant but after

all Tahir is her uncle and he wants some discussion regarding the same. As

he is moving the bail application next day in the Court, so the complainant

was requested not to oppose that application. During this discussion, she

brought the complainant up to the house of Tahir. When she asked that why

2

she is brought to the house of Tahir, she does not want to meet Tahir

meanwhile a young boy, whom Sahroj Fatima was addressing as Dabeer

Ahmad came and both Shahroj Fatima and Dabeer Ahmad caught hold of

her and forcibly dropped her in the outer room of Tahir and asked her to

discuss with Tahir. When both of them went out, Tahir closed the door and

asked her to compromise in the case. When she refused, then Tahir forcibly

raped her and when Tahir went out, Dabeer Ahmand also committed rape on

her. Thus, it is clear that on the pretext of compromise Shahroj Fatima

conspired with other accused persons and facilitated them in the commission

of offence. All the three accused persons made her cautious and threatened

her of dire consequences on lodging of the report. She informed the incident

on 24.11.2019 in writing to the police station concerned but in vain.

Thereafter, she sent letter to the Superintendent of Police, Chitrakoot

through registered post. When her case was not registered, she was

compelled to file this application.

After recording the statement of the complainant under Section 200

Cr.P.C. and statement of P.W. 1 Sunita Devi, mother of the complainant and

staetment of P.W. 2 - Shiv Mangal s/o Munne Singh under Section 202

Cr.P.C. the lower court passed the impugned order dated 12.11.2020 and

summoned the opposite party Nos. 2, 3 and 4 to face the trial under sections

mentioned above.

Being aggrieved by this order, the complainant filed this appeal and

submitted that the evidence produced in the lower court constitutes the

commission of cognizable offence under Section 376 I.P.C. also but the

lower court without application of judicial mind passed the illegal order

against the evidence on record, which is based on self surmises and

conjectures. In her statement and in the