# Smt. Anita v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 8 ILRA 848
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-07-28
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 5506 of 2021
- **Bench:** Karunesh Singh Pawar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-anita-v-state-of-u-p-ors-48947
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 & 120B - The Schedule Castes & The Schedule
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities ) Act ,
1989 - Section 3(1)Da, Dha and 3(2)V -
The Code of criminal procedure, 1973 -
Section 161 appeal against rejection of
protest petition.

Wife of deceased (appellant) - applied for
Welfare
Scheme
(Mukhyamantri
Krishak
Durghatana
Kalyan
Yojna)
-
claiming
compensation showing an accidental death of
her
husband
-
received
Rs.5
lacs
as
compensation - site plan shows deceased died
due to accident - post mortem report shows
deceased died due to excessive bleeding - vain
attempt by appellant/complainant to prosecute
private respondents 3 to 8 - to get additional
compensation under SC/ST Act - claim totally
contradictory to material on record - pleadings
in counter affidavit not rebutted. (Para -8 to
12 )

HELD:- Case is a perfect example of abuse of
process of the court, for ulterior monetary gain.
Appeal dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/- . To be
recovered from appellant as arrears of land
revenue. (Para -12,13 )

Criminal Appeal dismissed. (E-7)

## Text

848 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

44.
Considering
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case, we provide that
since the appellant has remained under
incarceration for a period of more than 16
years, without any remission, his claim for
remission or commutation in terms of
Section
433/433A
Cr.P.C.
shall
be
accorded
consideration
by
the
State
Government in accordance with its policy
within a period of three months from today.
----------
(2022) 8 ILRA 848
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.07.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 5506 of 2021

Smt. Anita ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Nanhe Lal Tripathi

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Govt. Advocate, Sri Bhagwan Das

(A) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 & 120B - The Schedule Castes & The Schedule
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities ) Act ,
1989 - Section 3(1)Da, Dha and 3(2)V -
The Code of criminal procedure, 1973 -
Section 161 appeal against rejection of
protest petition.

Wife of deceased (appellant) - applied for
Welfare
Scheme
(Mukhyamantri
Krishak
Durghatana
Kalyan
Yojna)
-
claiming
compensation showing an accidental death of
her
husband
-
received
Rs.5
lacs
as
compensation - site plan shows deceased died
due to accident - post mortem report shows
deceased died due to excessive bleeding - vain
attempt by appellant/complainant to prosecute
private respondents 3 to 8 - to get additional
compensation under SC/ST Act - claim totally
contradictory to material on record - pleadings
in counter affidavit not rebutted. (Para -8 to
12 )

HELD:- Case is a perfect example of abuse of
process of the court, for ulterior monetary gain.
Appeal dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/- . To be
recovered from appellant as arrears of land
revenue. (Para -12,13 )

Criminal Appeal dismissed. (E-7)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Karunesh Singh
Pawar, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
appellant, learned counsel for respondents
3 to 8 and learned A.G.A. as also perused
the record.

2. It is informed at bar that respondent
No.2 Vijay has died.

3. Present criminal appeal has been
filed against the order dated 9.9.2021
passed in f.R. No.119 of 2020 Smt. Anita
versus Vijay relating to case crime No.163
of 2020 under sections 147, 148, 149, 302,
120-B I.P.C., 3(1)Da, Dha and 3(2)V of
Scheduled
Castes
&
Scheduled
Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989,
P.S. Madwara, district Lalitpur whereby
while accepting the final report, learned
Special Judge, SC/ST has rejected the
protest petition Paper No.25Ka filed by the
appellant.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant
has submitted that the investigating officer
has not conducted fare and impartial
investigation. Merely in one day, the
investigation has been completed and final
report has been filed. The deceased has
given dying declaration, however, same has
not been recorded by the investigating
8 All. Smt. Anita Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
849
officer. The final report has been submitted
in active connivance by the investigating
officer with the accused persons.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. and
learned counsel for the complainant have
opposed the appeal. It has been submitted
that the post mortem report clearly shows
that the deceased died due to accident.
Statement of the doctor has been filed
along with the counter affidavit, according
to which, the injuries sustained by the
deceased were due to accident. Shivraj, the
informant on the same day, i.e. on
13.5.2020 gave an application to the police
stating that the deceased met an accident
while he was on a motorcycle and was
under an influence of liquor.

6. Statement of the independent
witness Rammupal, eye-witness Nanhebhai
are also on record with the counter affidavit
which denies the story of the appellant and
have categorically stated that it was a case
of accident.

7. The informant Shivraj has also
given his statement under section 161 CrPC
which is also on record along with the
counter affidavit. He has also said that the
deceased as well as two other persons were
heavily drunk and met an accident with a
buffalo. All the three were injured. They
were taken to government hospital. Doctor
also told that they were heavily drunk.
Thereafter, they were brought home where
the deceased died. He further stated that he
gave the information to the police station.
Inquest was made and he is the inquest
witness.

8.

Learned
counsel
for
the
complainant has also drawn attention of
this court towards the report of Revenue
Inspector dated 18.6.2020 wherein the wife
of the deceased, present appellant applied
for Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatana
Kalyan Yojna. The report has been
submitted in view of the application given
by the appellant for claiming the aforesaid
compensation showing an accidental death
of her husband.

9. He further informed that the
appellant has received a sum of Rs.5 lacs as
compensation.

10. Perusal of the impugned order and
the relevant record shows that the accident
took place on 12.5.2020 between 2.00 and
8.00 p.m.. The first information report was
lodged on 26.9.2020 after an application
under section 156(3) CrPC was given on
1.6.2020. No plausible explanation of delay
of 17 days was given by the appellant for
lodging the first information report. The
application given at the local police station
by Shivraj, the informant was on record
with the trial court which is numbered as
12ka stating that on 12.5.2020, his brother
Shivcharan (deceased) and Vijai Lodi went
to take diesel and they met an accident.
Thereafter, the deceased was taken to
hospital,
Madwara
where
the
doctor
informed him that he was under influence
of wine and will get well and thereafter he
brought him to the village where he died.

11. According to the site plan, the
deceased died due to accident. According
to post mortem report also, the deceased
died due to excessive bleeding from the
injury in the lungs and liver of the
deceased. Statement of the doctor under
section 161 CrPC is also on record. The
learned court below has perused the
medical report of the doctor at Community
Health Centre, Madwara dated 12.5.2020,
prepared at 9.38p.m., according to which
Vijai and Shiv Charan after the accident
came
to
him
for
treatment
which
850 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
contradicts the statement of the appellant
that on 12.5.2020 at 8.00p.m. she along
with her brother in law went to see her
husband. The claim of the appellant has
been found totally contradictory to the
material on record of the Special Judge as
the brother in law of the appellant himself
has stated that the deceased met an accident
which corroborates the statement of the
doctor and the medical report which also
shows that the appellant did not go with the
deceased husband to the hospital. The post
mortem report also shows that the deceased
met an accident as apart from the injuries
shown for cause of death, there are six
other ante mortem injuries on the shoulder,
knee, foot, shin and thigh which shows that
it is a case of accident.

12. On due consideration to the
argument advanced by the parties' counsel
and perusal of the record as also findings
recorded by the learned Special Judge,
coupled with the fact that the appellant on
one hand has filed this appeal against
rejection of her protest petition, on the
other hand according to the report of the
Revenue Officer dated 18.6.2020 she has
applied
for
Mukhyamantri
Krishak
Durghatana Kalyan Yojna and as per
statement given by learned counsel for the
complainant, she has also received a sum of
Rs.5 lacs as compensation in the said
Scheme which shows that this is the vain
attempt by the appellant/complainant to
prosecute the private respondents 3 to 8 for
the offences under sections 147, 148, 149,
302, 120-B I.P.C., 3(1)Da, Dha and 3(2)V
of
Scheduled
Castes
&
Scheduled
Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
and only with a view to get an additional
compensation under SC/ST Act by putting
altogether not only a different but totally
contradictory story. This case is a perfect
example of abuse of process of the court,
for ulterior monetary gain. The statement of
the learned counsel for the complainant that
the appellant has received an amount of
Rs.5 lacs under the above Welfare Scheme
and the pleadings in the counter affidavit
have not been rebutted by learned counsel
for the appellant.

13. The appeal is accordingly
dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/- which
shall be recovered from the appellant
within three months from today as arrears
of land revenue under intimation to the
Registrar General of this Court by the
concerned District Magistrate.
----------
(2022) 8 ILRA 850
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.08.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

Jail Appeal No. 5752 of 2007

Gabbar Patel @ Dharmendra Patel
 ...Appellant
Versus
State ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellant:
From Jail, Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh A/C, Sri
Satya Prakash Rathor (A.C.)

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Section 307 - Arms Act, 1959 -
Section
3/25
-
Narcotic
Drugs
and
Psychotropic
Substances
Act,
1985
-
Section 8/22 - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 313 - plead
guilty - Confession -Mere recovery of a
weapon and one empty cartridge would
not be sufficient to prove the use of the
said weapon without any corroborating