JYOTI DEVI ALIAS JYOTI SHARMA ALIAS JYOTI DEVI SHARMAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                  CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 11272 of 2025


Jyoti Devi Alias Jyoti Sharma Alias Jyoti Devi
Sharma                                                       .....Appellant(s)
                                   Versus

State Of U.P. And 2 Others
                                                           .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)        : Lallan Prasad, Alok Singh, Ankit
                                  Katiyar, Phool Chandra Singh, Pramod
                                  Kumar Katiyar, Sumitra Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)       : G.A., Ravi Shankar Yadav

Court No. - 93
                      HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.

1. Despite last opportunity granted by this Court vide order dated
24.8.2026, none appears on behalf of opposite party no.3.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/applicant and learned AGA for
the State.

3. The present criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant with a
prayer to set aside the charge-sheet dated 11.7.2024 as well as the
impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 7.1.2025 passed by
Additional Session Judge, Court No.2/Special Judge, SC/ST (PA) Act,
Kanpur Dehat in Session Case No.28 of 2025 (State vs. Jyoti Devi
Sharma), arising out of Case Crime No.111 of 2024, under Sections 323,
504, 506 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, P.S.-
Sikandara, District- Kanpur Dehat.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the summoning order is
illegal and has been passed without proper appreciation of the material on
record. It is submitted that the injury report was prepared after an
unexplained delay of about 16 days, thereby rendering the prosecution
version doubtful. The medical report merely records simple injuries stated
to be 16–17 days old and does not conclusively connect the alleged
injuries with the incident in question. It is further argued that the delay in
                                                         CRLA No. 11272 of 2025
                                 2


medical examination casts serious doubt on the prosecution case, and
therefore the appellant has been falsely implicated. Accordingly, it is
prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the appeal be allowed.

5. Learned AGA has opposed the appeal and submits that the appellant is
specifically named in the FIR and that the victim has consistently
supported the prosecution case in her statement recorded during
investigation by attributing a specific role to the appellant in using caste-
based derogatory language and causing injuries. It is further submitted
that the medical report corroborates the version of the injured and that the
delay in medical examination is a matter of evidence to be appreciated
during trial. It is, therefore, contended that the trial Court has rightly taken
cognizance and summoned the appellant, and no interference is
warranted.

6. In the FIR, the present appellant has been specifically named along
with two co-accused, namely Ram Sharan and Aman. Ram Sharan is
stated to be the husband of the appellant. The prosecution case, as set out
in the FIR, is that when the victim had gone to Tehsil Sikandra for her
personal work and came out of the tehsil premises, the appellant met her
outside the premises, abused her by using caste-based derogatory
language with the intention to insult and humiliate her, and also caused
injuries to her. During investigation, the victim, in her statement recorded
under Section 161 Cr.P.C., supported the prosecution version and
specifically attributed the role of the appellant in using derogatory
language and causing injuries. The place of occurrence has consistently
been stated to be outside the Tehsil Sikandra premises. Learned counsel
for the appellant submitted that the injury report was prepared belatedly.
It is true that the medical examination was conducted on 17.05.2024,
about 16 days after the alleged incident, and the doctor opined that the
injuries were simple in nature and approximately 16–17 days old.
However, the effect of such delay in the preparation of the injury report is
a matter of appreciation of evidence to be considered by the trial Court
during trial. Prima facie, the medical report lends corroboration to the
version of the injured/victim. Considering the allegations in the FIR, the
statement of the victim recorded during investigation, and the material
collected by the Investigating Officer, this Court finds no error in the
                                                                                            CRLA No. 11272 of 2025
                                                                    3


                                    order whereby the trial Court has taken cognizance and summoned the
                                    appellant.

                                    7. For the reasons recorded above, this Court finds that the learned trial
                                    court has rightly summoned the accused-appellant under the aforesaid
                                    provisions. The impugned order is well reasoned and does not suffer from
                                    any illegality or infirmity warranting interference in appellate jurisdiction.

                                    8. The instant appeal, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed.

                                    9. Registrar (Compliance) is directed to serve a copy of this order by
                                    FAX/e-mail to the court concerned through District & Sessions Judge
                                    concerned within 48 hours.



                                                                                                (Santosh Rai,J.)
                                    September 9, 2026
                                    RA




Digitally signed by :-
RAZIQ ALI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad