# Jagannath v. State

- **Citation:** (2021) 11 ILRA 871
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-12-17
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 702 of 1988
- **Bench:** Karunesh Singh Pawar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jagannath-v-state-46662
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Section - 307 - Proof of grievous hurt not a sine
qua non for the offence-12 wounds -weapon
used
was
firearm-intention
to
murder
apparent-second part of section 307 IPC is
attracted-prior
enmity-motive
provedconviction upheld-sentence reduced.

Appeal disposed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

11 All. Jagannath Vs. State
871
default of payment of fine to further undergo
two years rigorous imprisonment is hereby set
aside.

37. Appellants, namely, Ram Avadh
Yadav and Ishwar Deen Yadav are acquitted of
the charges levelled against them. They shall be
released forthwith if not wanted in any other
case.

38. Office is directed to communicate this
order forthwith to the court concerned and also
to send back the lower court record to ensure
compliance.
----------
(2021)12ILR A871
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 17.12.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 702 of 1988
Connected with
Criminal Appeal No. 754 of 1988

Jagannath ...Appellant
Versus
State ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
P.L. Misra, Amarjeet Singh, Amit Chaudhary,
Seraj Ahmad

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Section - 307 - Proof of grievous hurt not a sine
qua non for the offence-12 wounds -weapon
used
was
firearm-intention
to
murder
apparent-second part of section 307 IPC is
attracted-prior
enmity-motive
provedconviction upheld-sentence reduced.

Appeal disposed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Neelam Bahal & anr. Vs St. of Uttarakhand,
reported in (2010) 2 SCC, 229

2. St. of Mah. Vs Balram Bama Patill (1983)2 SCC 28

3. St. of M. P Vs Saleem (2005)5 SCC 554

4. Jage Ram Vs St.of Har. (2015)11 SCC 366
(Delivered by Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar, J.)

1. These two criminal appeals arise out of a
common judgment and order dated 14.10.1988
passed by VII Additional Sessions Judge,
Sitapur in Sessions Trial No.218 of 1987
whereby the appellants Santu, Naresh, Ram
Shankar, Prem Narain, Bahori, Jagannath and
Bhudhar have been convicted and sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years
under section 148 I.P.C.. They are further
convicted under Section 307 I.P.C. read with
section 149 I.P.C. and each of them is sentenced
to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years.
Both the sentences of all the accused appellants
were directed to run concurrently.

2. As per the prosecution case narrated in
the written report, Ex.Ka.6, Lallu, father of the
accused Santu and Naresh was murdered. In the
said case, Santu had named Shiv Balak Ram,
complainant of the present case and others. At
the time of the present incident, the murder cases
was pending before the trial court. There was
enmity between the complainant and Santu and
others and a case under Section 107/117 CrP.C.
was also pending in the Court.

Due to the said enmity, on 23.6.1986
at about 6.00p.m. in village Shah Singhpur,
P.S. Kamlapur, district Sitapur when the
complainant Shiv Balak Ram was coming to
his home after attending natural call, near
Ahata of Ramasrey, situated towards north of
the village, he saw accused Santu, Hori Lal
872 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and Jagannath, armed with guns, Naresh
armed with double barrel gun, Ram Shankar
and Prem Narain armed with addhi (half guns)
and accused Bhudhar (since dead) was
standing at a distance of 50 to 60 paces. On
seeing Shiv Balak Ram, accused appellant
Santu exhorted to kill and on this extortion,
the accused persons started to fire on Shiv
Balak Ram, causing injuries to him. In order
to save her son, Smt. Shakunti, P.W.2 ran,
however, she also sustained fire arm injuries.
In the meantime, witnesses Ram Milan,
Ramesh Chandra (P.W.1), Kanauji Lal, P.W.3,
Lallu, Shamle and others reached near the
place of the occurrence. On challenge being
made, the accused persons ran away towards
village Santraha. The complainant later on
came to know that the accused persons are
lying in ambush in the way towards the police
station and as such, he did not proceed to
police station for lodging the report in the
same evening. On the next morning, he got the
report of the incident ascribed by Gobardhan
Lal, P.W.6 and proceeded towards police
station in a bullock-cart along with his injured
mother Smt. Shakunti. On reaching the police
station at 8.00a.m. on 23.6.1986, he gave a
written report, Ex. Ka-6 to Constable Sardar
Husain, P.W.4, who prepared chick report,
Ex.Ka.1 and registered a case under sections
147, 148, 149/307 I.P.C., P.S. Kamlapur,
district Sitapur against all the accused persons.
He also prepared Chitthi Majrubi of injured
Shakunti and Shiv Balak Ram and referred
them to the Medical Officer, Barai Jalalpur for
medical examination.

3. The Medical Officer of Primary Health
Centre, Jalalpur examined the injuries of injured
Shiv Balak Ram at 12.30p.m.. He found the
following injuries :

1. Fire arm wound 1.0 x 1.5 on the
front of right thigh 16cm below the right anterior
superior ilioc spine. Clotted blood present.

2. Fire arm wound 1.0 x 1.5c.m on the
anterior aspect of right thigh 19cm above right
knee joint

3. Fire arm wound .5cm x 1c.m. on the
anterior aspect of right thigh 13cm above right
knee joint

4. Fire arm wound 1.00cm x .5c.m. on
the medical aspect of right thigh 22cm above the
right popliteal fossa

5. Fire arm wound 1.0 x 1.5cm. on the
anterior medical aspect of left thigh 21cm below
the left anterior superiro ilioc spine. Clotted
blood present.

6. Two fire arm wound 1.0 x 1.5cm
and 1.5 x .5cm and the anterior aspect of left
thigh 18cm and 19.5cm above left knee joint.

7. Fire arm would 1.0 x 1.5cm on the
posterior aspect of left thigh 13cm above left
popliteal fossa.

On the same day at about 1.10p.m.,
injuries of Smt. Shakunti were also examined by
the doctor who found following injuries :

1. Multiple fire arm wounds in an area
of 16cm x 9cm on the lateral aspect of right
upper arm. Size about 0.4cm x 0.2cm

2. Multiple fire arm wounds in an area
of 19 x 11 cm on the anterio lateral aspect of
right lower arm.

3. Multiple fire arm wounds in an area
of 13cm x 9cm on the upper part of right breast

4. Multiple fire arm wounds in an area
of 7cm x 8cm on the right laterial side of
abdomen

5. Multiple fire arm wounds in an area
of 10cm x 4cm on the posterior lateral aspect of
right knee joint.

All the injuries were found to have
been caused by fire arm. The injuries were kept
under observation. X-ray of respective parts was
advised and duration was about 18 hours.

Injury memos prepared by the doctor
are Ex.Ka-4 and Ex.Ka-3 respectively.

4. After investigation, charge-sheet was
filed. The Magistrate has committed the case to
11 All. Jagannath Vs. State
873
the Court of Sessions. Charges were framed and
the accused persons have been charged under
sections 148 and 307 I.P.C. read with section
149 I.P.C. They pleaded not guilty and claimed
to be tried.

5. The prosecution in support of its case.
has examined Ramesh Chandra Mishra, P.W.1 ,
Shakunti, P.W.2, Kannauji Lal, P.W.3, HC
Sardar Husain, P.W.4, the writer of chick and
C.D. Dr. Pulak Raj, P.W.5 Medical Officer,
Gobardhan Lal, P.W.6 the writer of report
Ex.Ka-6
and
Durga
Prasad
Singh,
the
investigating officer of the case.

6. In their statement under section 313
CrPC, the accused persons have stated that
father of the accused Santu and Naresh was
murdered in the year 1985. The complainant
Shiv Balak Ram and others were named in the
first information report lodged by Santu. The
murder trial was pending against Shiv Balak
Ram and others. They have stated that due to
enmity and also because they are Khandani of
the informant, they have been falsely implicated.
The accused Bhudhar, Bahori Lal, Naresh and
Rama Shankar being the witnesses in the murder
case of Lalji have also been falsely implicated. It
is stated that on the date of occurrence, a dacoity
was committed in the house of complainant in
the night and he along with his companions has
been falsely implicated in the case in collusion
with the police.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants
submits that a perusal of the injury report shows
that injures were was kept under observation and
none of the injuries received by the injured has
been found to be serious or grievous to life. The
injured Shiv Balak, informant of the case could
not be examined as he had died even before his
statement could be recorded. P.W. 1 Ramesh has
been declared hostile. P.W.2 Shakunti, injured,
though is not an eye-witness,has supported the
prosecution case.

It is submitted that even if the entire
prosecution story is taken to be true on its face
value, the appellants can be said to have been
wrongly convicted under sections 307/149 I.P.C.
The case will not travel beyond Section 324
I.P.C. for the reason that none of the injuries
received by the injured persons was found to be
grievous or dangerous to life; the seat of injuries
of both the injured, except injuries 3 and 4 of
Smt. Sakunti, was also such that none could be
said to have been caused on any vital part of the
body. Although the accused persons were seven
in number and all have allegedly fired shots
from their respective fire arms. Only two shots
fired on the injured and two from a distance
causing no grievous injuries which prove that
the intention of the accused was to cause injuries
and not to commit any murder.

8.

Per
contra,
learned
Additional
Government Advocate has opposed the appeals.
He submits that a perusal of the injury report
shows that the deceased Shiv Balak Ram had
suffered seven fire arm injuries and the injured
Shakunti has also received multiple firearm
injuries on various parts of her body including
right breast. Therefore, it cannot be said that
there was no intention to commit murder. He
also submits that gravity of the injury is
irrelevant for conviction under section 307 I.P.C.
What is to be seen is the actual intent of the
accused persons, the nature of the weapon used,
severity of the blow inflicting multiple fire arm
injuries for commission of offence under Section
307 I.P.C. There was a definite attempt to
commit murder of both the injured persons.

9. P.W.1 Ramesh has not supported the
prosecution version. He has been declared
hostile.

P.W. 2 Shakunti after hearing the
sound of fire ran near the pond and saw that the
accused Naresh armed with double barrel gun,
Santu, Bahori and Jagannath with guns, Rama
874 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Shankar and Prem Narain armed with half guns
and Bhudhar armed with Kanta were assaulting
her son. When she went there, they shouted to
kill the old lady also. Then, she also suffered fire
arm injury and fell down.

P.W.
3
Kannauji
Lal
has
also
supported the prosecution version, however, he
is not an eye-witness.

P.W.4 HC Sardar Husain has proved
the chick report, Ext.Ka.1 and G.D., Ex.Ka-2.

P.W.5 Dr. Pulak Raj, Medical Officer
who examined the injuries of both the injured has
opined that all the injuries are caused by fire arm.
He has prepared the injury memo and proved it as
Ex.Ka-3 and Ex.Ka-4. The x-ray plate has been
proved as Ex.Ka-5. He has stated that the injuries
received by Shiv Balak Ram have been caused
from 3-4' distance. He has also stated that all the
fire arm wounds of Shiv Balak Ram have been
caused by more than one weapon.

10. As regards injuries received by
Shakunti, he has stated that these fire arm
wounds have come from a distance of 16-17'. It
is possible that she has received these fire arm
injuries from one weapon.

11. P.W.6 Gobardhan Lal, writer of report,
has proved the written report, Ex.Ka-6.

12. S.I. Durga Prasad Singh is the
investigating officer. He recorded the statements of
complainant Shiv Balak Ram and Smt. Shakunti.
He also took into his possession the clothes of both
the injured, sealed the same and prepared memo
Ex.Ka.7. At the place of occurrence he recorded
the statements of Ramesh, Kanauji Lal and Lalau,
the witnesses of fact. He collected blood stained
and plain earth and prepared site plan Ex.Ka-8. He
prepared memo Ex.Ka-9. He also found 7 empty
cartridges at the place of occurrence, prepared
memo Ex.Ka-10. He proved Ex.Ka.11 which is the
gun of accused Jagannath. He has also proved
charge-sheet, Ex.Ka-12.

13. The injured Shakunti in her statement
has clearly stated that the accused persons
Naresh, Santu, Bahori, Jagannath, Ram Shankar
and Prem were armed with fire arm and Bhudhar
was armed with Kanta and when she came at the
place of occurrence, the accused persons also
shot her. It is the testimony of the injured
witness which is on higher pedestal than eyewitness.. Therefore, there is no reason for this
court to disbelieve the testimony of P.W.2.

14. P.W.3 Kannauji Lal, a witness of fact,
though is not an eye-witness to the assault,
however, after hearing the fire arm shot, he
came out of the house and went behind his house
and has seen the accused. He took the name after
identifying them. Therefore, he has given the
evidence against seven accused persons namely
Naresh, Santu, Bahori, Jagannath, Ram Shankar,
Prem and Bhudhar who were armed with
weapons and were running towards west north
direction of the village.

15. It is submitted on behalf of the
appellants that no grievous injury has been
received by the injured and there is no repeated
assault and therefore, the case will not travel to
Section 307 I.P.C; rather it is to be converted
under section 324 I.P.C.

As regards submission of learned
counsel is concerned, a perusal of the injuries
received by both the injured reveals that they
have received multiple fire arm wounds in
various areas of the body. The injured Shakunti
sustained five fire arm injuries. She was
seriously injured. She was a surviving witness.
Shiv Balak Ram, compainant has sustained
seven fire arm injuries which, according to
Doctor, have been caused from more than one
weapon. The trial court has held that the
prosecution has been successful in proving its
case. Participation of all the accused persons
with a view to commit murder of the injured
11 All. Jagannath Vs. State
875
persons has also been proved by the statements
of P.W.2 and P.W.3.

16. So far as the arguments of learned
counsel for the appellants that the injuries are
not grievous or life threatening, the contention
of learned A.G.A. as recorded in preceding para
8 of the present judgment carries weight. The
intention of the accused has to be seen from the
actual injury as well as from the surrounding
circumstances, the nature of the weapons used
and severity of the blow inflicted. The injury
reports of both the injured depict that Shiv Balak
Ram has sustained seven fire arm injuries and
Shakunti has received five fire arm wounds. All
the injuries have been found to be caused by the
accused persons. The ocular evidence is intact
and corroborated by medical evidence. In
reference to record, the trial court has rightly
held that the accused persons had common
intention of causing fatal injuries to both the
injured persons.

17. Before proceeding further, it would be
appropriate to extract Section 307 I.P.C. as
under :

"307.Attempt
to
murder.--Whoever
does any act with such intention or knowledge,
and under such circumstances that, if he by that
act caused death, he would be guilty of murder,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to ten
years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt
is caused to any person by such act, the offender
shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or
to
such
punishment
as
is
hereinbefore
mentioned.

Attempts by life convicts.--When any
person offending under this section is under
sentence of imprisonment for life, he may, if hurt
is caused, be punished with death."

The
first
part
of
Section
307
I.P.C.refers to "an act with such intention or
knowledge, and under such circumstances that,
if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty
of murder". The second part of Section 307,
which carries a heavier punishment, refers to
''hurt caused in pursuance of such an ''act.

18. In State of Maharashtra v Balram
Bama Patill (1983)2 SCC 28, the Supreme
Court held that it is not necessary that a bodily
injury sufficient under normal circumstances to
cause death should have been inflicted. Relevant
portion of para 9 of Balram Bama Patill's case is
reproduced as under :

"9...To justify a conviction under this
section it is not essential that bodily injury
capable of causing death should have been
inflicted. Although the nature of injury actually
caused may often give considerable assistance
in coming to a finding as to the intention of the
accused, such intention may also be deduced
from other circumstances, and may even, in
some cases, be ascertained without any
reference at all to actual wounds. The section
makes a distinction between an act of the
accused and its result, if any. Such an act may
not be attended by any result so far as the
person assaulted is concerned, but still there
may be cases in which the culprit would be
liable under this section. It is not necessary
that the injury actually caused to the victim of
the assault should be sufficient under ordinary
circumstances to cause the death of the person
assaulted. What the Court has to see is whether
the act, irrespective of its result, was done with
the
intention
or
knowledge
and
under
circumstances mentioned in this section. An
attempt in order to be criminal need not be the
penultimate act. It is sufficient in law, if there is
present an intent coupled with some overt act in
execution thereof."

 (Emphasis supplied)

In State of M P v Saleem (2005)5
SCC 554, the Supreme Court held as under:

"13. It is sufficient to justify a
conviction under Section 307 if there is present
876 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
an intent coupled with some overt act in
execution thereof. It is not essential that bodily
injury capable of causing death should have
been inflicted. The section makes a distinction
between the act of the accused and its result, if
any. The court has to see whether the act,
irrespective of its result, was done with the
intention or knowledge and under circumstances
mentioned in the section. Therefore, an accused
charged under Section 307IPC cannot be
acquitted merely because the injuries inflicted
on the victim were in the nature of a simple
hurt."

In Jage Ram v State of Haryana
(2015)11 SCC 366, it has been held that to
establish the commission of an offence under
Section 307, it is not essential that a fatal injury
capable of causing death should have been
inflicted. To reproduce:

"12. For the purpose of conviction
under Section 307IPC, the prosecution has to
establish (i) the intention to commit murder; and
(ii) the act done by the accused. The burden is on
the prosecution that the accused had attempted to
commit the murder of the prosecution witness.
Whether the accused person intended to commit
murder of another person would depend upon the
facts and circumstances of each case. To justify a
conviction under Section 307 IPC, it is not
essential that fatal injury capable of causing
death should have been caused. Although the
nature of injury actually caused may be of
assistance in coming to a finding as to the
intention of the accused, such intention may also
be adduced from other circumstances. The
intention of the accused is to be gathered from the
circumstances like the nature of the weapon used,
words used by the accused at the time of the
incident, motive of the accused, parts of the body
where the injury was caused and the nature of
injury and severity of the blows given, etc."

19. From the above judgments, it is evident
that proof of grievous or life-threatening hurt is
not a sine qua non for the offence under Section
307I.P.C. The intention of the accused can be
ascertained from the actual injury, if any, as well
as from surrounding circumstances. Among
other things, the nature of the weapon used and
the severity of the blows inflicted can be
considered to infer intent.

20. In the present case, the nature of the
injuries shows that there were 12 wounds. The
weapon of offence was a firearm. The
circumstances of the case clearly indicate that
there was an intention to murder. The presence
of 12 bleeding wounds as well as the use of a
fire arm leave no doubt that there was an
intention to murder. Thus, the second part of
Section 307 I.P.C. is attracted in the present
case.

21. The contention of learned counsel for
the appellants that the doctor has not opined that
the injuries sustained were grievous or life
threatening has no force as the Doctor, P.W.4
has also not said that these injuries received by
both the injured are simple injuries. All the
injuries have been found to be caused by fire
arm. They were kept under observation. X-ray
was advised. Multiple fire arms have been used
to inflict injuries on the injured persons as per
statement of the doctor, therefore, the argument
that there was no repeated assault and therefore,
there was no intention to commit murder does
not appeal. The fact that both the accused
persons have received seven and five fire arm
wounds does not rule out the possibility of
repeated assault, therefore, the trial court has
rightly convicted the accused appellants.

22. The accused persons had also clear
motive for crime having been committed which
is evident from a perusal of the first information
report. The complainant Shiv Balak Ram was an
accused in the murder of Lalji, father of accused
Santu and Naresh and therefore, there was
enmity between the parties due to that case. The
murder of Lalji and the pendency of the case
11 All. Jagannath Vs. State
877
against Shiv Balak Ram at the time and date of
the incident of this case is admitted to the
accused appellants. Thus, motive has also been
proved beyond doubt.

23. The accused Bhudhar has been charged
under section 148 I.P.C. P.W. 2 Shakunti in her
statement has stated that accused Bhudhar was
armed with Kanta and was assaulting her son
and he also was armed with deadly weapon at
the time of occurrence and all the accused
persons are closely related. The accused Santu
and Naresh are real brothers. The accused Rama
Shankar, Prem Narain and Bahori are the sons of
Rameshwar, thus, they are the real brothers. It
has come in evidence that the accused Bhudhar
resides in the house of Naresh and Bahori which
also shows that all the accused except Jagannath
reside in one and the same house and armed with
deadly weapons, they formed an unlawful
assembly with a common motive of committing
murder of Shiv Balak Ram and Shakunti Devi,
P.W.2. Nature of injuries as well as the weapons
of offence clearly prove an intention to commit
murder and hurt caused satisfies the ingredients
of Section 307 I.P.C. Charges against the
accused persons have rightly been proved under
section 307 I.P.C., read with section 149 I.P.C
and they have been rightly found guilty under
section 148 I.P.C., and section 307 read with
section 149 I.P.C.

24. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the
conviction awarded by the trial court is upheld.

25. The Superintendent, District Jail, Sitapur
has sent a report dated 3.8.2021 wherein it has
been stated that the accused appellants Santu,
Naresh, Ram Shankar, Prem Narain and Bahori
have already been released from jail way back in
the year between 1991 and 1994 after giving them
benefit of Remission Rules and they have been
released from jail. Bhudhar has already died.

26. As regards accused appellant Jagannath
of Criminal Appeal No.702 of 1988, he was
released on bail by this court vide order dated
24.11.1994. In the said order, it has been
observed that he has remained in jail for six
years on the date of passing of the order.

27. In the case of Neelam Bahal and
another Vs. State of Uttarakhand, reported in
(2010) 2 SCC, 229; accused was convicted
under Section 307 I.P.C. and was sentenced to
undergo seven years' rigorous imprisonment.
The Supreme Court has convicted accused under
Section 326 I.P.C. and reduced the sentence to
period already undergone on the ground that the
incident happened in the year 1987 when the
accused was of young age of 25 years.

28. Considering the fact that the incident is
of 1986, except the appellant Jagannath, who has
already undergone a substantial period of six
years in jail in the year 1994 at the time of grant
of bail to him, all the other accused persons,
namely Santu, Naresh, Ram Shankar, Prem
Narain and Bahori have already been released
from jail way back after giving them the benefit
of Remission Rules by the government after
serving more than six years of sentence and
keeping in view the time lag, their sentence is
reduced to the period already undergone.

29. The appellant Jagannath has already
served a substantive period of six years in jail,
the ends of justice would be served if he is
sentenced with the period of imprisonment
already undergone and it would be proper to
reduce
the
sentence
to
the
period
of
imprisonment already undergone by him.

Ordered accordingly.

30. Both the appeals are disposed of, as
above.
878 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

The Registry is directed to send back
the record of the trial court immediately along
with a copy of the present order.
----------
(2021)12ILR A878
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 29.11.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAV, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 994 of 2021

Hari Prakash Rawat ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Saharsh, Adarsh Bhushan

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Scheduled Caste & Scheduled
Tribes Act,1989- Sections 14 (A)- Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 156 (3) -
Learned Judge did not record as to any
disclosure of commission of cognizable offence
-in Application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C.-instead
went
deep
into
evidence-
and
rejected
application-required
to
see
prima
facie
disclosure
of
cognizable
offence-impugned
order rejected-Appeal allowed. (E-9)
List of Cases cited:

1. Ramesh Kumari Vs State (NCT of Delhi) reported in
(2006) 2 SCC 677

2. Lalita Kumar Vs Govt. of U.P. & ors. reported in
2014 (2) SCC 1

3. St. of Assam Vs Abdul Noor & ors. reported in
(1970) 3 SCC 10
(Delivered by Hon'ble Vikas Kunvar Srivastav, J.)

1. The case is called out.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant Sri
Saharsh, Advocate and learned A.G.A. for the
State Sri Anurag Singh Chauhan, Advocate are
present in the Court.

3. The e-court record reveals that office
has reported vide it's report dated 24.11.2021,
the notice issued pursuant to the order of the
Court dated 14.07.2021 has been served
personally upon the opposite party no.2 i.e. Raj
Kumar Verma. As such service is held
sufficient.

4. Despite service of notice, none
appeared, either the opposite party no.2, the
prospective accused in person or the learned
counsel on his behalf to represent him, though,
learned A.G.A. was directed vide order dated
26.11.2021
to
secure
the
presence
or
representation of the said prospective accused,
opposite party no.2.

5. Learned A.G.A. submits that the facts
averred in the application under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. against the opposite party no.2 disclose a
private dispute between him and the present
appellant, the same is dismissed, as such, there is
no information or instruction with him in this
regard to argue.

6. Sri Ram Kripal Singh, Sub-Inspector,
Police Station Alambagh, District Lucknow,
pursuant to the direction given to learned A.G.A.
to attend the Court with prospective accused, has
come but it is informed that the said opposite
party no.2 i.e. prospective accused has denied to
attend the Court today.

7. The matter is heard on merit on the basis
of materials available on the record of appeal.

8. The instant appeal in hand is moved
under Section 14(A) of The Schedule Castes and
Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,