Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(SC) 1188

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Sandeep Mehta, JJ.
Shashikant Sharma & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No(s) 3663 OF 2023 (Arising out of SLP(Criminal) No(s). 5323 of 2023)
Decided On : 01-12-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. R Basant, Sr. Adv. Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Adv. Mr. Amit Shrivastava, AOR Mrs. Priyanka Sharma, Adv. Mr. Prahil Sharma, Adv. Mr. Harender Singh, Adv. Mr. Pawan Sharma, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sharan Dev Singh Thakur, A.A.G. Ms. Ruchira Goel, AOR Mr. Siddharth Thakur, Adv. Mr. Aviral Saxena, Adv. Mr. Sharanya Sinha, Adv. Mr. Mustafa Sajad, Adv. Mr. Adit Jayesbhai Shah, Adv. Ms. Keerti Jaya, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Hegde, Sr. Adv. Mr. Swetashwa Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Sanchit Garga, AOR Ms. Mithu Jain, Adv. Mr. Kunal Rana, Adv. Ms. Sneha Goswami, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINT
At stage of framing of charges, Court is not required to undertake meticulous evaluation of evidence and even grave suspicion is sufficient to frame charge – Nevertheless, if necessary ingredients of an offence are not made out then Court is not obligated to frame charge for such offence against accused.

Headnote:
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Sections 3(2)(v) and 14A(1) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323 and 504 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 227 – Casteist abuses and attack by gun – Rejection of discharge application – At stage of framing of charges, Court is not required to undertake meticulous evaluation of evidence and even grave suspicion is sufficient to frame charge – Nevertheless, from admitted evidence of prosecution as reflected in documents filed by Investigating Officer in under Section 173 Cr.P.C., if necessary ingredients of an offence are not made out then Court is not obligated to frame charge for such offence against accused – Incident had undertones of a political rivalry – From admitted case set up by prosecution, there is no such allegation that offence under IPC punishable with imprisonment of 10 years or more was committed by an accused of upper caste upon a person belonging to Scheduled Caste community with the knowledge that such person belonged to said community – Prima facie ingredients of offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act are not made out from admitted allegations of prosecution and to this extent, charge framed against accused appellants is groundless – Impugned orders to the extent of charge framed against accused appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act and order rejecting appeal cannot be sustained and quashed and set aside – However, trial of accused for remaining offences shall continue. (Paras 12, 15, 16, 17 and 18)
Facts of the case:
instant appeal has been preferred by accused appellants questioning legality and validity of Order dated 6th April, 2023 passed by Single Judge of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad rejecting Criminal Appeal No. 3107/2023 preferred by accused appellants under Section 14A(1) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Appellate Court affirmed Order dated 14th March, 2023 passed by Special Judge SC/ST(PoA) Act, Hathras in Session Case No. 228/2021, rejecting the application for discharge filed by accused appellants under Section 227 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and directing framing of charges against them for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 504 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.
Findings of Court:
As a consequence of quashing of charge for offence punishable under the SC/ST Act, and since remaining charges are for the offences punishable under IPC, trial of the case shall stand transferred from the Special Court to Court of Sessions having jurisdiction to try the case.
Result : Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT :

Mehta, J.

1. Leave granted.

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.

3. It may be mentioned that vide Order dated 19th May 2023, this Court had directed that the bonds executed by the accused appellants in pursuance of the Order dated 2nd September, 2022 passed by the High Court shall remain in force and non-bailable warrants which had been issued at that stage, shall not be executed until further consideration.

4. Learned senior counsel for the appellants, at the outset, conceded that so far as the offences punishable under IPC are concerned, the prayer for discharge would require extensive evaluation of evidence and hence, he gave up the challenge made on behalf of the accused appellants to the Order framing charges qua these offences. However, the fervent contention of learned senior counsel was that the ingredients of Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act are not prima facie made out against the accused appellants from the admitted allegations of the prosecution and hence, the accused appellants deserve indulgence of this Court and the impugned orders are liable to be interfered with to this extent.

5. Learned senior counsel contended that for the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act to be made out, there must be a specific allegation of 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 community. Referring to the impugned orders, the allegations made in the FIR and the statements of the witnesses recorded during investigation under Section 161 CrPC, learned senior counsel pointed out that as per the highest case of prosecution, the accused Vinod Upadhyay fired a gun shot at Rinku Thakur which hit him in the left thigh. The only projection made in the prosecution case regarding the offence under SC/ST Act was that the witness Virender Kumar being a member of SC community was subjected to casteist abuses by the accused appellants after the gunshot had been fired at Rinku Thakur. He urged that the entire thrust of the prosecution case regarding the offences committed under the provisions of the IPC is focussed qua Rinku Thakur and thus, there is no factual or legal basis for the charge framed against the accused appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

6. Without prejudice to the above, learned senior counsel urged that the entire prosecution case is false and fabricated and lodged as a counterblast on account of political vendetta. He urged that the theory set up by the prosecution in the FIR and in the statement of the prosecution witnesses that Rinku Thakur was caused a fire arm injury is patently falsified from the medicolegal report prepared by the Medical Jurist who examined Rinku Thakur opining that a boil/abscess was noticed on his thi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document