Present appeal
2. The instant appeal has been preferred by the accused appellants questioning the legality and validity of the Order dated 6th April, 2023 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad rejecting the Criminal Appeal No. 3107/2023 preferred by the accused appellants under Section 14A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter being referred to as the ‘SC/ST Act’). The learned appellate Court affirmed the Order dated 14th March, 2023 passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST(PoA) Act, Hathras in Session Case No. 228/2021, rejecting the application for discharge filed by the accused appellants under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973(hereinafter being referred to as the ‘CrPC’) and directing framing of charges against them for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 504 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter being referred to as the ‘IPC’) and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. By the said Order, the learned Special Judge also directed that the accused appellants shall remain present in the Court on the appointed date.
xxx
Facts
9. The Court was taken through the order passed by the learned Special Judge with particular reference to the allegation that the investigating officers were pressurised to give negative report under Section 173 CrPC. Using their political clout, the accused persons even managed to obstruct the lodging of FIR and with great difficulty and after intervention of the Court, the FIR was got registered. The investigation was manipulated at the instance of a former Cabinet Minister in the Government of Uttar Pradesh. They urged that from the statement of Virender Kumar recorded under Section 161 CrPC, it is clearly borne out that after the accused persons had fired the gun shot at Rinku Thakur, they turned their attention towards the witness and hurled caste-based abuses towards him and threatened him with dire consequences.
xxx
Scope regarding discharge
12. At the outset, it may be emphasised that in the written submissions filed on behalf of the State, the pertinent plea raised by the learned counsel for the appellants that necessary ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act are not made out from the admitted allegations of the prosecution, has not been specifically controverted. There cannot be any quarrel with the principles laid down in the judgments cited Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Criminal) No. 5323 of 2023 7 by the State counsel in the written submissions that at the stage of framing of charges, the Court is not required to undertake a meticulous evaluation of evidence and even grave suspicion is sufficient to frame charge. Nevertheless, there is also a long line of precedents that from the admitted evidence of the prosecution as reflected in the documents filed by the Investigating Officer in the report under Section 173 CrPC, if the necessary ingredients of an offence are not made out then the Court is not obligated to frame charge for such offence against the accused. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Suresh @ Pappu Bhudharmal Kalani Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2001 SC 1375.
xxx
SC/ST and section 307 IPC case set up by the prosecution does not reveal the offences
14. From a bare perusal of the provision, it is crystal clear that for the above offence to be constituted, there must be an allegation that the accused not being a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe committed an offence under the IPC punishable for a term of 10 years or more against a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe knowing that such person belongs to such ‘community’.
15. Going by the material collected during investigation, it is manifest that the incident had the undertones of a political rivalry. At this stage, we may note that though learned counsel for the appellants gave up the challenge to the charge framed against the accused appellants for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC but the fact remains that when the witness Rinku Thakur who alleged that he was shot upon by the accused Vinod Upadhyay, was medically examined, no corresponding gun shot injury was observed on his person.
16. Be that as it may, as per the highest case of prosecution, the only offence under IPC punishable with imprisonment of 10 years or more being the offence under Section 307 IPC has been applied on the basis of the gun shot allegedly fired by the accused Vinod Upadhyay upon Rinku Thakur, which admittedly did not result into any corresponding injury. After perusal of the entire material on record, we have no hesitation in concluding that from the admitted case set up by the prosecution, there is no such allegation that the offence under IPC punishable with imprisonment of 10 years or more was committed by an accused of upper caste upon a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste community with the knowledge that such person belonged to the said community.
Case transferred from special court to sessions court having jurisdiction
17. Hence, there is merit in the contention of learned counsel representing the appellants that prima facie ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act are not made out from the admitted allegations of prosecution and to this extent, the charge framed against the accused appellants is groundless. 18. Resultantly, the impugned orders to the extent of charge framed against the accused appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act and the order rejecting the appeal cannot be sustained and are hereby quashed and set aside. However, the trial of the accused for the remaining offences shall continue. The accused appellants already stand released on bonds as indicated in the Order dated 19th May, 2023 passed by this Court. The bonds so submitted shall enure till conclusion of the trial. The non-bailable warrants issued against the accused by the trial Court are hereby quashed. As a consequence of quashing of the charge for the offence punishable under the SC/ST Act, and since the remaining charges are for the offences punishable under IPC, the trial of the case shall stand transferred from the Special Court to the Court of Sessions having jurisdiction to try the case.
Party
SHASHIKANT SHARMA & ORS. ….APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. ….RESPONDENT(S) – Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Criminal) No. 5323 of 2023 – 2023 INSC 1036.
https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2023/16199/16199_2023_17_1501_48752_Judgement_01-Dec-2023.pdf
