InCriminal Appeal No. 3663 of 2023 -SC- ‘Court not obligated to frame charge if necessary ingredients of offence not established from prosecution's evidence’: Supreme Court quashes SC/ST Act charge in political rivalry case
Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha & Justice Sandeep Mehta [01-12-2023]

Read Order: Shashikant Sharma &Ors V. State of Uttar Pradesh &Anr

Chahat Varma

New Delhi, December 4, 2023: The Supreme Court has quashed the charge under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) against the accused appellants in a case related to a political rivalry. The Court held that the ingredients of the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act were not evident from the admitted allegations of the prosecution.

The accused appellants had filed the present appeal, challenging the rejection of their criminal appeal by the Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court. The Appellate Court had upheld the order of the Special Judge SC/ST (PoA) Act, which had dismissed the accused appellants' application for discharge under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). The Special Judge had directed the framing of charges against the accused appellants for offenses under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

The appellant’s counsel contended that, for the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act to be established, there must be a specific allegation by the prosecution that the accused committed an offence punishable under the provisions of the IPC against a member of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe, knowing that the victim belongs to such a community. The counsel further urged that the entire prosecution case was false and fabricated, lodged as a counterblast on account of political vendetta. On these grounds, the counsel requested the court to accept the appeal and reverse the impugned orders to the extent of the charge framed against the accused appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

The division bench, comprising of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Sandeep Mehta, observed that there was a long line of precedents indicating that if the necessary ingredients of an offence were not established from the admitted evidence of the prosecution, as reflected in the documents filed by the Investigating Officer in the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., the court was not obligated to frame a charge for such an offence against the accused. It was noted that the plea raised by the counsel for the appellants, asserting that the necessary ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act were not made out from the admitted allegations of the prosecution, had not been specifically controverted in the written submissions filed on behalf of the State.

The bench examined Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act and highlighted that, from a bare perusal of the provision, it was evident that for the above offence to be constituted, there must be an allegation that the accused, not being a member of the 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 a 'community.'

Upon reviewing the entire material on record, the Court concluded that as per the prosecution's own case, there was no allegation that an offense punishable with imprisonment of 10 years or more, committed by a person of an upper caste upon a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste community with the knowledge of the victim's community status.

“Going by the material collected during investigation, it is manifest that the incident had the undertones of a political rivalry,” remarked the Court.

Thus, the Court ruled that the ingredients of the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act were not evident from the admitted allegations of the prosecution. Consequently, the charge framed against the accused appellants for this offence was deemed groundless.

The Court quashed the impugned orders related to the charge under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act and the order rejecting the appeal. However, the trial for the remaining offences was directed to continue. The Court also quashed the non-bailable warrants issued by the trial Court against the accused.

In light of quashing the charge under the SC/ST Act and considering the remaining charges under the IPC, the Court ordered the trial to be transferred from the Special Court to the Court of Sessions with jurisdiction to try the case. The appeal was allowed accordingly.