The judgment established the principle that at the stage of framing charges, the sufficiency of evidence is not evaluated, and the interpretation of derogatory caste names and their implications under the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is crucial.

Ashutosh Kumar, J.

1. Both the cases have been heard together and a common order is being passed.

2. Heard the counsels for the parties in both the cases.

3. The petitioners in both the petitions have put a challenge to the order dated 3.5.2013 passed by ASJ-02, North District, Rohini Courts in Sessions Case No.89/2011 in connection with FIR No.242/2011 (P.S. Crime Branch) whereby the prayer for discharge of the offences under Sections 447/120B and 34 of the IPC read with Section 3(1)(v) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) has been refused.

4. The prosecution case as projected by the petitioners is that during the floods of 1961-62 the lands in village Mohammadpur were washed away. The villagers left the village for settling at safer places and the village land remained vacant.

5. In 1977 the village was again ravished by floods in Yamuna. Later with the flood water receding, the land was reclaimed.

6. A resolution was passed in 1977 under the Chairmanship of Gram Pradhan distributing the land of the village amongst landless people belonging to Scheduled Castes and other landless residents. The aforesaid resolution was passed under 20 point programme.

7. The complainants came in possession of the land in question which was allotted under the aforementioned scheme.

8. Another resolution came into effect on 14.11.2010 wherein the Lal Dora land which was washed away in floods and later reclaimed was decided to be divided and allotted amongst villagers equally as the land belonging to village Mohammadpur.

9. The dispute began from this time when it was alleged that the accused persons, in order to benefit themselves trespassed the land which was allotted to the complainants and started leveling the land by means of tractors and JCB. Police was called to forestall the possibility of bloodshed.

10. The IO found that the saplings were uprooted.

11. It was alleged that accused persons namely Kanwal Singh, Raj Singh and Leela (Petitioners in Criminal Revision Petition No.596/2013) abused the victims by taking their caste name Balmiki.

12. On completion of investigation, chargesheet was submitted whereupon cognizance was taken. Since the offences under the Act are triable by Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.

13. On point of charge, the petitioners submitted that they have been falsely implicated and no caste remark was made against the complainants of the case. It was only after a reasonable lapse of time that such an allegation was leveled. It was also averred by the petitioners that assuming but not admitting the allegations against them to be ex facie true, no offence under Sections 447/120B and 34 of the IPC could be said to have been made out.

14. The aforesaid submissions were rebutted by the learned APP before the Court below and it was stated that the petitioners as accused persons wrongfully trespassed into the lands of complainants, destroyed their crops, interfered with their peaceful possession of the land and also tried to disparage their dignity by abusing the complainants by their caste name.

15. As referred to earlier by order dated 3.5.2013, the prayer for discharge was refused and charges were framed under various sections of IPC referred to above and under Section 3(1)(v) of the Act read with Section 120B of the IPC.

16. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that from November, 2010 to September, 2011 proceedings were pending with respect to the said lands before Superior Courts. The property in question was Lal Dora property and, therefore, it could not have been used for any other purpose except residence. It was further submitted that the present case is only a ploy to blackmail and pressurize the petitioners so that they relinquish their claim over the land. It was emphasized by the learned counsel for the petitioners that assuming that the complainants were called by their caste name Balmiki, that by itself would not make them liab