Allahabad High Court

BAKHAT SINGH GURJAR AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 22 March 2026
Bench: ABDUL SHAHID

Holding

The appeal is dismissed; the order of the Special Judge proceeding under Section 304 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act stands.

Summary

The appellants Bakhat Singh Gurjar and another appealed against the order of the Special Judge who had proceeded with a case under Section 304 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, alleging that they had assaulted a 75‑year‑old man who later died of septicemia. The complainant initially supported the prosecution but later filed an affidavit claiming the FIR was lodged due to a misunderstanding and that the parties had settled. The appellants also relied on an affidavit by the alleged eyewitness denying the incident. The High Court examined the material, noted that the death occurred under unnatural circumstances and that a prima facie case of culpable homicide existed, and held that the settlement and later affidavits did not extinguish the criminal liability. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it, upholding the Special Judge’s proceedings.

Issues considered

Whether the FIR was lodged on a false basis and the criminal proceedings should be quashed.
Whether the death of the deceased can be attributed to the alleged assault to constitute culpable homicide under Section 304 IPC.
Whether the provisions of Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are applicable.
Whether the settlement between parties and subsequent affidavits bar continuation of the criminal trial.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 304
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(2)(v)

Subjects

criminal appeal
culpable homicide not amounting to murder
SC/ST Act
false FIR
settlement
eyewitness affidavit
prima facie case
abuse of process of law

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 12467 of 2023

Bakhat Singh Gurjar And Another
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s) : Nikhil Kumar, Prashant Kanha
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Saurabh Yadav

Court No. - 53
HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel
appearing for opposite party no. 2, and the learned A.G.A. for the
State.

2. Under challenge is the impugned order dated 07.07.2023 passed
by the Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act, Jalaun at Orai and entire
proceeding of Sessions Trial No. 45 of 2023, under sections 304
1.P.C. and 3 (2) (v) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (State Vs. Bakhat Singh
and another), arising out of case crime no. 0156 of 2023, Police
Station Jalaun, district Jalaun, including Charge-Sheet No. 01 dated
28.06.2023, pending in the Court of Special Judge (S.C./S.T.) Act,
Jalaun at Urai.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the FIR has been
lodged under a misconception and is based on false and fabricated
allegations. It is further submitted that the complainant/opposite party
no. 2 has himself filed an affidavit stating that the FIR was lodged due
to misunderstanding and the parties have now amicably settled the
dispute. Learned counsel contends that the continuation of criminal
proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law.

4. It is argued that the alleged eyewitness, namely Monu who is the
grandson of the deceased (Tijole), has filed a notary affidavit and
sent a letter to the Superintendent of Police, Jalaun, stating that no
such incident took place on 01.05.2023 and the FIR was lodged
under undue influence of certain persons. Learned counsel further
argued that the cause of death of the deceased (Tijole), who was
aged about 75 years, has been shown as Septicemia due to
micronodular cirrhosis and there is no direct nexus between the
alleged assault and the death of the deceased. Therefore, at any
stretch of imagination, the offence under Section 304 IPC is not made
out.
CRLA No. 12467 of 2023
2

5. The FIR of the said offence has been lodged by opposite party no.
2 under Section 304 IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of The Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
against the appellants. It has been specifically alleged that the
appellants hurled abuses with caste-based remarks and assaulted
the deceased with lathi and danda while he was lying on the ground.
The alleged incident took place on 01.05.2023.

6. After a detailed investigation, charge sheet has been filed against
both the appellants under Section 304 IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of
The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989. Opposite party no. 2, in his statement under
Section 161 Cr.P.C., has supported the prosecution case and made
allegations against the appellants.

7. However, the complainant/opposite party no. 2 has also filed a
short counter affidavit dated 12.02.2024 stating in paragraph no. 3
that the FIR was lodged under a misconception and now the parties
have settled down their dispute and the answering
respondent/opposite party no. 2 does not want to pursue the case
further.

8. A counter affidavit dated 07.04.2025 has also been filed by Umesh
Kumar Pandey, presently posted as Circle Officer, District Jalaun,
stating therein that the deceased, aged about 75 years, was
assaulted by appellant no. 1 and his son (appellant no. 2), and due to
the injuries sustained, he died. It is further stated that there is an
eyewitness, namely Monu, who has supported the prosecution story
in his statement. A photocopy of the statement of the eyewitness has
been filed as Annexure-2 to the counter affidavit. The cause of death
has been stated to be Septicemia due to micronodular cirrhosis, and
thereafter, the FIR was lodged and the charge sheet was submitted
against the appellants.

9. The appellants have filed a rejoinder affidavit dated 20.04.2025
stating that the statement of the alleged eyewitness under Section
161 Cr.P.C. does not inspire confidence. It is reiterated that the said
eyewitness has subsequently filed an affidavit denying the
occurrence and alleging that the FIR was lodged under undue
influence. It is again emphasized that the cause of death was
Septicemia due to micronodular cirrhosis, which, according to the
appellants, cannot be directly attributed to the alleged incident.

10. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties and having perused the material placed on record, it is evident
that the FIR has been lodged under Section 304 IPC and Section
3(2)(V) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. During the investigation, opposite
party no. 2 initially supported the prosecution case. The case is not
one under Section 302 IPC, but under Section 304 IPC, i.e., culpable
CRLA No. 12467 of 2023
3

homicide not amounting to murder. The injured sustained injuries in
the alleged incident dated 01.05.2023 and subsequently died on
02.05.2023, as per the prosecution case.

11. The fact that the deceased was aged about 75 years cannot be
ignored. However, when a person dies under unnatural
circumstances, even at an advanced age, a prima facie case is made
out against the accused.

12. In view of the facts and circumstances, this Court finds no force in
the present criminal appeal. The appeal is liable to be dismissed and
is dismissed accordingly.
March 23, 2026
M. Tarik
(Abdul Shahid,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
MOHD TARIK
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…