Patna High Court – Orders
Sudhakar Prasad Singh @ Sudhakar Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 5 February, 2025
Author: Rajiv Roy
Bench: Rajiv Roy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.5316 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-21 Year-2019 Thana- NAYA RAM NAGAR District- Munger
======================================================
1. Sudhakar Prasad Singh @ Sudhakar Kumar Son of Late Ramcharitar Singh
Resident of Mohalla - Chandanpura, P.S. - Naya Ram Nagar, District -
Munger
2. Diwakar Prasad Singh @ Diwakar Kumar Son of Late Ramcharitar Singh
Resident of Mohalla - Chandanpura, P.S. - Naya Ram Nagar, District -
Munger
3. Pankaj Kumar Singh @ Pankaj Kumar Son of Late Madhukar Singh
Resident of Mohalla - Chandanpura, P.S. - Naya Ram Nagar, District -
Munger
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Rajendra Das Son of Late Lakhan Das Resident of Mustfachak, P.S. - Naya
Ram Nagar, District - Munger
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Mritunjay Kumar, Adv.
Ms. Shilpi Singh, Adv.
Mr. Vibhuti Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binay Krishna, APP
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Kumar Baith, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
3 05-02-2025
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, the State as
also the respondent no. 2.
2. The present appeal has been filed:
against the order dated 08.10.2024
passed by Court of Learned Special Judge
(SC/ST Act), Munger in Nayaramnagar P.S.
Case No. 21 of 2019 whereby the petition
dated 04.04.2024 filed by the appellants in
pursuance of order dated 15.03.2024 passed
in CR. APP (SJ) No.4957 of 2023 by Hon’ble
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5316 of 2024(3) dt.05-02-2025
2/9Patna High Court, under section 216 of Code
of Criminal Procedure for alteration of
erroneous and improper charges framed
against them has been rejected in most
mechanical manner and without application
of mind.
3. The matrix of facts giving rise to the present appeal
is/are as follows:
The allegation is that on 20.01.2019 in the night, the
appellant came to the informant’s house and after abusing, took
caste name, assaulted and also opened fire. The further allegation
is that two of the appellants (appellant no. 1, Sudhakar Prasad
Singh and appellant no. 3, Pankaj Kumar Singh) set the house on
fire. This resulted into two she goats, hen and eggs consigned to
the flames. Land dispute has been reasoned out for the said
assault and earlier, the further allegation is that the accused
persons had taken away the ‘Sagwan’ tree standing on the land of
the informant. This followed the FIR.
4. The police investigated the matter and promptly
submitted charge-sheet ten days later i.e. on 31.01.2019 vide
charge-sheet no. 11 of 2019 under Sections 341, 323, 436, 504,
506/34 IPC and 27 Arms Act, Section 3(1)(r)(s) of SC and ST
Act. Once the cognizance was taken on 16.12.2021, the journey
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5316 of 2024(3) dt.05-02-2025
3/9
of the appellants to Patna High Court started inasmuch as
immediately thereafter, the Cr. Misc. No. 1992 of 2023 was
preferred which came to be withdrawn on 11.10.2023 (Annexure
No. 6 to the petition).
5. In between, charges were framed against the
accused persons on 16.01.2023.
6. The appellants once again knocked the doors of
Patna High Court in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 4957 of 2023 which
was dismissed on 15.03.2024 as not being maintainable with the
observation that they should have instead moved under Section
216 of the Cr.P.C. before the Trial Court to raise their grievance
(Annexure-2 to the petition).
7. This followed petition before the learned Trial Court.
However, vide an order dated 08.10.2024, the same came to be
rejected and the reason has been assigned as under:
Heard both sides and perused the
material on record. From the perusal of record it
appears that the informant Rajendra Das has
mentioned in his fardbeyan as well as in para 2 of
the case diary specifically that on 20.01.2019 at 10
‘O’ clock night the accused petitioner namely
Sudhakar, Diwakar & Pankaj Kumar came to the
house of informant and started abusing him by
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5316 of 2024(3) dt.05-02-2025
4/9calling sala chamar. Thereafter, all of them started
beating him and the accused petitioner namely
Pankaj Kumar fired with a country made pistol
which hit to mother-in-law (saas) of the informant.
Thereafter, the accused petitioner Sudhakar Kumar
sprinkled kerosene oil and on his instigation
Diwakar Kumar lit the safety maches in his house
due to which two goats, hens, cocks, eggs and a
chowki burnt. He has also corroborated the above
facts in his statement before the court as PW1.
Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act dealt
with “whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled
Caste or a Scheduled Tribe; intentionally insults or
intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place
within public view” and Section 3(1)(s) dealt with
“whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste
or a Scheduled Tribe; abuses any member of a
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name
in any place within public view.”
In Criminal Appeal No. 1709 of 2014 (P.
Kartikalakshmi vs Sri Ganesh & Anr.) Hon’ble
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5316 of 2024(3) dt.05-02-2025
5/9Supreme Court observed that ” Section 216 Cr.P.C.
empowers the Court to alter or add any charge at
any time before the judgment is pronounced. It is
now well settled that the power vested in the Court
is exclusive to the Court and there is no right in any
party to seek for such addition or alteration by filing
any application as a matter of right. It may be that if
there was an omission in the framing of the charge
and if it comes to the knowledge of the Court trying
the offence, the power is always vested in the Court,
as provided under Section 216 Cr.P.C. to either alter
or add the charge and that such power is available
with the Court at any time before the judgment is
pronounced. It is an enabling provision for the
Court to exercise its power under certain
contingencies which comes to its notice or brought
to its notice. In such a situation, if it comes to the
knowledge of the Court that a necessity has arisen
for the charge to be altered or added, it may do so
on its own and no order need to be passed for that
purpose. After such alteration or addition when the
final decision is rendered, it will be open for the
parties to work out their remedies in accordance
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5316 of 2024(3) dt.05-02-2025
6/9with law.”
So, from perusal of the case record as
well as statement made at by the bar and analysis of
Section 3(1)(r) and Section 3 (1)(s) of the Scheduled
Caste or Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act and on the basis of case law (Supra), it appears
that the petition u/s 216 of the Cr.P.C. ‘filed on
behalf of the petitioners has no merit and as a result
this petition is hereby dismissed.
Put up on 22.11.2024 for recording of
Prosecution Evidence.
Dictated
sd/-
Special Judge (Sc/St Act)
8. Still aggrieved, the present appeal.
9. It is the case of the appellants that the hut of the
informant is at a secluded place and as such, it cannot be said that
the abuse/taking of the caste name has been done in public and
thus the different sections of SC/ST Act was not applicable.
Learned counsel submits that despite the specific averment made
in this regard before the concerned Court, the same was ignored
and in a routine manner, the order was passed which has been
challenged.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5316 of 2024(3) dt.05-02-2025
7/9
10. In this case, the informant has appeared and besides
informing that the trial is on and altogether three witnesses have
already been examined, the further submission is that the
appellants have ignored the fact that besides the abuse, they also
opened fire and put the hut on flame. The opening of fire and
putting the hut on flame in the dead of the night beside the abuse
definitely attracted the local villagers and the alibi that the hut
being at a secluded place cannot be the reason to ignore the abuse
and/or taking the caste name.
11. The further submission is that the burning of the hut
caused damage to the property of the informant as she goats, hens
and the eggs, all perished. He as such, submits that the appellants
who are in the habit of approaching the High Court at the drop of
the hat, now the time has come that they face trial so that the
same is taken to its logical conclusion.
12. Learned Spl. P.P. also supported the submissions
put forward by the learned Counsel for the informant and submits
that a land dispute/any dispute between the parties clearly shows
that both the parties are known to each other and in that
background, Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled
Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
(henceforth for short, ‘the 1989 Act’) automatically gets attracted
where the offence is committed against a person or property
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5316 of 2024(3) dt.05-02-2025
8/9
knowing that such person is a member of Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe.
13. Having gone through the facts of the case and the
materials on record as also the submissions put forward by the
learned counsel for the informant and the State are worth
consideration. The allegation is that the appellants opened fire,
put the hut on fire which resulted into the damage to the property.
14. At this stage, it is important to incorporate Section
3(2)(va) of ‘the 1989 Act’ which read as follows:
3. Punishments for offences atrocities –
Whoever, not being a member of a
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, –
(va) commits any offence specified in the
Schedule, against a person or property,
knowing that such person is a member of a
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such
property belongs to such member, shall be
punishable with such punishment as specified
under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) for
such offences and shall also be liable to fine;
15. The aforesaid section clearly shows that when any
offence is committed against a person or property knowing that
such person is a member of Schedule Caste of Schedule Tribe or
such property belongs to such member, the SC/ST shall be
attracted.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5316 of 2024(3) dt.05-02-2025
9/9
16. The trial is on, the witnesses are being examined, in
that background, it would be appropriate that the appellants take
the same to its logical conclusion. They are free to put forward all
their point/views to show their innocence before the learned Trial
Court.
17. So far as the present appeal is concerned, it is bereft
of being considered and/or any relief to be extended.
18. Cr. App (SJ) No. 5316 of 2024 stands dismissed.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Vijay Singh/-
U T
[ad_1]
Source link