IMPORTANT POINT
Murder – Mere fact that deceased belonged to a Scheduled Tribe does not, ipso facto, attract provisions of Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(vi) of SC/ST Act, 1989.

ORDER

Criminal Revision Case has been preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.,’) feeling aggrieved by the order of discharging the Respondents/Accused Nos.1 to 8, vide order dated 20.03.2020 in Crl.M.P.No.612 of 2019 in Spl.S.C.No.74 of 2018 on the file of the learned IV Additional District & sessions Judge, Kadapa (for short the Trial Judge) for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(vi) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for brevity ‘the SC/ST (PoA) Act’).

2. Ms. P. Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor while reiterating the grounds of the Revision, argued that the impugned order dated 20.03.2020 passed by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa in Crl.M.P.No.612/2019 is liable to be set aside as being legally unsustainable, factually erroneous, and procedurally improper. The discharge of the accused persons therein was affected without due appreciation of the material facts and without a proper application of judicial mind to the contents of the charge sheet and the consequent circumstances of the case.

2.1. The learned Trial Judge failed to consider that the charge sheet was filed by the Assistant Superintendent of Police, a competent authority, after due investigation and application of mind. The said charge sheet contains prima facie material implicating the accused persons, which ought to have been evaluated in its entirety before arriving at any conclusion regarding discharge. Further, the learned Trial Judge erred in disregarding the legal position that, for the invocation of Section 3(2)(v) of ‘the SC/ST (PoA) Act’, it is sufficient that the accused had knowledge of the caste of the victim. The requirement of specific intent or motive is not a precondition for the applicability of the said provision, and the facts on record clearly indicate that such knowledge was present.

2.2. Moreover, the learned Trial Judge failed to appreciate the gravity of the allegations against Accused No.8, who is the wife of the deceased and is alleged to have conspired with Accused Nos.1 to 7 in committing a premeditated and cold-blooded murder. The act was purportedly camouflaged as an accidental death to mislead the investigating agency and conceal her illicit relationship with Accused No.1. Such allegations, supported by circumstantial evidence, warranted a full-fledged trial rather than a premature 4 discharge. The discharge order suffers from non-application of mind and a lack of judicial scrutiny. The learned Judge did not engage with the factual matrix or the legal implications arising therefrom, and the reasons assigned in support of the discharge are vague, obligatory, and devoid of legal substance. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be interfered with and set aside.

3. Sri P. Adinarayana Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Shaik Mohammed Ismail, learned Counsel for the Respondents would argue that the learned Trial Court had rightly appreciated the material available on record. There was no flagrant miscarriage of justice. There were no perverse findings. There was no irregularity let alone material irregularity. The order impugned is not vitiated by manifest error of law or procedure which had resulted in miscarriage of justice. The impugned order doesn’t suffer from any illegality or infirmity.

3.1. Sri P. Adinarayana Rao, the learned Senior Counsel further argued that there was no material to establish that the alleged offence was taken place against the deceased just on the sole ground that deceased belonged to a Scheduled Tribe. Therefore, the learned Trial Judge has rightly appreciated the discharge petition on correct perspective and allowed it. It is also further submitted that the investigation was not conducted by specified rank officer as per Section 7 of the SC/ST (POA) Rules, 1995 (for brevity ‘the Rules’). It was initially