Allahabad High Court has given no relief to Former Minister Ramveer Upadhyay’s son, brother and a close acquaintance h in the attempt to murder and SC/ST Act.
The High Court upheld the decision of the Sessions Court and dismissed his appeal.
A Single Bench of Justice Gajendra Kumar passed this order while hearing a Criminal Appeal filed by Shashikant Sharma and 4 Others.
The appeal has been preferred under section 14 A (1) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred as SC/ST Act) against the order dated 14.03.2023, passed by the Special Judge SC/ST (PA) Act, Hathras, in Session Case under Section 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 504 I.P.C and Section 3(2)(5) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, PS Sahpau, District Hathras, whereby, the application filed by the appellants for discharge, has been rejected.
It has been argued by the counsel for the appellants that the impugned order is against facts and law thus, liable to be set aside.
The respondent No 2 has lodged an FIR against the appellants and other accused persons making false and baseless allegations.
It is further submitted that there is a cross-version of this FIR and the FIR has been lodged as a counterblast to the earlier one which was lodged from the appellants side.
It is also submitted that the injury report of the injured is fake and concocted as the opinion formed by the doctor about the same. The allegation that appellants have abused one Virendra who was an activist of the informant’s party by using caste indicative words and assaulted him, is thoroughly false. Referring to the facts of the matter, it was submitted that no prima facie case is made out against appellants and thus, the trial court committed error by rejecting the discharge application of the appellants.
A.G.A and counsel for the opposite party no 2 have vehemently opposed the appeal and argued that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. In the FIR as well as in the statement of witnesses recorded during investigation, there are allegations that appellants-accused have assaulted and abused them by using caste indicative words.
The Court observed that,
It is well settled that at the stage of framing of charge or considering discharge application, the court is not to analyse reliability of the material on record. The evidentiary value and its credibility has to be considered at the stage of trial. Marshalling and appreciation of evidence is not in the domain of the court at that point of time. At the stage of consideration of an application for discharge, the court has to proceed with an assumption that the material brought on record by prosecution is true and such material and documents have to be considered with a view to find out whether the facts emerging from such material when taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the offence.
It is apparent from the discussed decisions of the Apex Court that at the stage of charge there can only be limited evaluation of materials and documents on record. At the stage of charge or consideration of an application for discharge, the court has to proceed with an assumption that the material brought on record by prosecution is true and such material and documents have to be considered with a view to find out whether the facts emerging from such material when taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the offence.
The Court noted that,
In the case, it is apparent that in the FIR there are allegations against the appellants that on 08.02.2017 when the informant and and his son were campaigning for a party, the appellants along with other accused persons ambushed and armed with firearm weapons intercepted them on the way and opened fire upon the informant’s son due to which he sustained injuries. It is also alleged that when the informant and other members of his side tried to stop them, the appellants and other accused persons assaulted the informant and other persons of his side.
It is also alleged that the appellants have abused one Virendra by using caste indicative words and assaulted him. As per the injury report of the injured, it is also apparent that there are two injuries caused by the appellants to the opposite party no 2 which are as per doctor opinion could have been caused by gunshot. The injured has supported the said version in his statement under Section 161 CrPC. The witnesses examined under Section 161 CrPC have also supported the said version.
“It is clear that the Trial court has considered the entire facts and position of law and dismissed the discharge application of appellants. In view of material on record it cannot be said that no prima facie case for charge is made out against appellants. The instant criminal appeal has no substance and thus, liable to be dismissed”, the Court further observed while dismissing the appeal.
However, considering facts of the matter, the Court directed the appellants to appear before the court concerned and apply for regular bail and their bail application shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law.