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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 1231

PATNA HIGH COURT
ALOK KUMAR PANDEY, J
Sanjeet Singh @ Sanjeet Kumar Singh – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3204 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Praveen Prabhakar
For the Respondents: Mr. Binay Krishna

The court adjudicated that existing evidence provided sufficient grounds to proceed against the appellants under relevant offenses without necessitating an evaluation of total evidential weight at the discharge stage.

Headnote:The present appeal challenges the order of the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, rejecting the discharge application of the appellants regarding the charges under various sections of IPC and SC/ST (POA) Act. The court outlined the allegations against the appellants, discussing the evidence led by prosecution and the delay in FIR lodging, which raised doubts on its authenticity. The court affirmed the conclusions of the lower court, emphasizing that sufficient grounds exist to proceed against the accused without delving deeply into evidential assessment. The appeal is dismissed as the findings recorded by the concerned court are unassailable.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 10-11-2025 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 26.05.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, East Champaran, Motihari in connection with SC/ST Trial No. 107 of 2024, (CIS No. 80 of 2024) arising out of Kalyanpur P.S. Case No. 68 of 2023, registered under Sections 279 , 341, 342, 323, 324, 307, 354(B), 504, 506, 34 of the IPC and Section

3(i)(r)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act whereby the concerned court has rejected the application filed by the appellants under Section

227 of the Cr.P.C.

3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that respondent no. 2/ informant submitted written application before the SHO of Kalyanpur Police Station, East Champaran stating therein that on 27.02.2023 at about 8:00 PM, appellants and other ran over two she-goats with Apache motorcycle and when same was protested, informant was abused by the accused persons. It is further alleged that on being forbidden to abuse and to take out key of the motorcycle, the accused persons thrashed the informant on the ground by catching hold of her hair lock. It is further alleged that the accused persons by taking the caste name of the informant snatched Mangalsutra and earrings from the informant and also tore her clothes. When the informant's son Ankit Kumar protested against the said action of the accused persons, appellant no. 1 assaulted on the head of informant's son by means of iron rod as a result of which he sustained head injury and fell down on the ground. Thereafter, informant's son was assaulted indiscriminately by means of iron rod and danda on other parts of the body. The informant's husband was also badly assaulted. The informant's son was sent to Kalyanpur Government Hospital where he was referred to Sadar Hospital for better treatment.

4. On the basis of written application of informant, Kalyanpur P.S. Case No. 68 of 2023 has been registered under Sections 279 , 341, 342, 323, 324, 307, 354(B), 504, 506, 34 of the IPC and Section 3(i)(r)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that there is delay of about two days in lodging the FIR as the alleged occurrence took place on 27.02.2023 and FIR was lodged on 01.03.2023 and no plausible explanation has been given regarding the said delay which questions the authenticity of the prosecution story. It is further submitted that there is case and counter case between the parties on the same date of occurrence and hence, free fighting cannot be ignored. He further submits that occurrence, as alleged in the FIR, has not taken place in public view and hence, no case under SC/ST Act is made out against the appellants. He further submits that the concerned court while dismissing discharge petition of appellants has not taken into account the material available on record and reached to the wrong conclusion. He further submits that two cases are lodged for the same date of occurrence and the concerned court has not taken into account other version and dismissed the discharge petition in a mechanical manner and hence, same is fit to be quashed.

6. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State submitted that from perusal of the FIR itself, it is evident that appellants and other have abused the informant and took her caste name and also thrashed her on the ground. He further submits that the accused persons snatched Mangalsutra and earrings from the informant and also tore her clothes. Appellant no. 1 assaulted on the head of informant's son/ Ankit Kumar by means of iron rod as a result of which he sustained head injury and fell down on the ground. Thereafter, informant's son was assaulted indiscriminately by means of iron rod and danda on other parts of the body. The informant's husband was also badly assaulted. He further submits that the investigating officer after making investigation on all points submitted charge sheet under Sections 147 , 148, 1

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