HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 12467 of 2023 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. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Nikhil Kumar, Prashant Kanha Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Saurabh Yadav Bakhat Singh Gurjar And Another .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) 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 2 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 CRLA No. 12467 of 2023 3 (Abdul Shahid,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHD TARIK High Court of Judicature at Allahabad