The court established that specific allegations under the SC/ST Act must be evident in initial complaints for charges to be actionable, and mere improvements in subsequent statements cannot justify framing charges without supporting evidence.

JUDGMENT :

AMIT SHARMA, J.

1. The present appeal under Section 14A (1) of The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (for short, “SC/ST Act”) has been filed by the victim/complainant (hereinafter referred to as “appellant”) seeking the following prayers: -

“In view of the circumstances mentioned hereinabove it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to :

i) Allow the appeal and set aside order dated 07.09.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-02, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi which is the Special Court, SC/ST Act to the extent of discharging the respondent nos. 2 and 3 herein, and direct the learned Special Court (SC/ST Act) to frame charge against the respondent no. 2 for the offences under sections 3( 1) (r), 3(1)(q), 3(l)(s), 3(1)(w), 3(1)(za)(E), 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va), 3(2) (vi) and 3(2)(vii) of the SC/ST Act and under sections 354A and 506 of the IPC and against the respondent no. 3 for the offences punishable under sections 3(l)(r), 3(l)(za)(E), 3(2)(vi) and 3(2) (vii) of the SC/ST Act and section 506 of the IPC and against the respondent no. 4 for the offences punishable under sections 354(A) and 341 of the IPC and sections 3(2)(va) and 3(2)(vii) of the SC/ST Act.

ii) Pass such other or further relief(s) which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.”

2. Vide the impugned order dated 07.09.2024, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, at the time of consideration on point of charge had discharged the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(q)/(r)/(s)/(w) of the SC/ST Act & Sections 354A/504 of the IPC, and Sections 3(1)(r) and Section 3(2)(vi) of the SC/ST Act respectively, in case FIR No. 194/2020, under Sections 3(1)(q)/3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act and Section 504 of the IPC, registered at Police Station, Hauz Khas. However, it was held that respondent No.4 was to face trial for the offences punishableunder Sections 341/354A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, (for short, ‘IPC’) and charges were directed to be framed against him accordingly.

3. Briefly stating the case of the prosecution is that, vide DD No. 5A dated 18.04.2020, an information was received by way of an MLC from AIIMS hospital wherein it was stated that a patient, the present appellant/complainant, was found in her room in unconscious state. On reaching hospital, it was found that the said patient was admitted and under treatment at AIIMS for alleged history of poisoning on 17.04.2020. The appellant was not declared fit for making statement till 20.04.2020. On 21.04.2020, the appellant was declared fit for making statement and based on said statement, the present FIR was registered. Then, the investigation of the case was entrusted to Assistant Commissioner of Police, who recorded the statement of the appellant under Section 161 of the CrPC and Medical Superintendent, AIIMS, was directed to provide all the documents/information and CCTV footage with respect to the complaint of the appellant and investigation in the present case was conducted.

4. The appellant in her statement recorded on 21.04.2020 has stated that she has been practicing medicine as Senior Resident in AIIMS for last 2 years and one month. She stated that for the last two years, respondent no.2 was discriminating against her on the basis of caste and gender, regarding which she had informed respondent no.3, her superior Chief and Professor, fromtime to time and the latter had stopped her from giving a written complaint. It was alleged that on 16.03.2020, respondent no.2 stood close to the seat of the appellant and used unparliamentary language to threaten her in an indecent manner by using dirty cast related words and misused his position of being her teacher in her OPD and violently removed her from chair when she was examining a patient assigned by respondent no.3, her superior Chief and Professo