SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Gau) 754

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH 
Mitali Thakuria, J.
Gaurav Upadhyay S/O Late Shyam Sundar Upadhyay – Petitioner 
Versus
The State Of Assam Rep. By The Ld Addl. P P, Assam and ors. – Respondents
Crl.Pet./1294/2024
Decided On : 03-06-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Ms. M. Gupta, Ld Sr. Adv. Assisted By Mr. V. Srivastava, Ld. Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. R. J. Baruah, Ld. Addl. P.P., Ms. G. Goswami

Accused entitled to a fair investigation; courts must ensure all relevant materials are considered to preserve rights under Article 21 while addressing charges under IPC and POCSO Act.

Headnote:(A) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 10; Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 354, 354-A; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Applicability questioned - The petitioner challenged the investigation report and order for proceeding with charges against him in a criminal case; the court affirmed prior rulings that the SC/ST Act's applicability depended on the validity of caste certificates. (Paras 2, 3, 14, 26)

(B) Fair Investigation - Entitlement to a fair investigation is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution; the court ruled that the investigating officer must consider all relevant materials while conducting an inquiry. The failure to do so violates the petitioner's right to a fair trial. (Paras 9, 10, 12, 28)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner faced charges related to sexual assault under POCSO Act and IPC. The investigation process included disputes regarding the application of the SC/ST Act based on the complainant's caste status—a crucial matter dictated by ongoing assessments by a designated committee. (Paras 2-3)

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the Special Judge’s order to proceed with charges as there was no indication of erroneous conduct in accepting the investigation report, based on thorough examination of all materials presented. (Paras 27-30)

Issues: The main issue was whether the SC/ST Act's provisions applied and how the investigating officer addressed the materials submitted by the petitioner. (Paras 14, 30)

Ratio Decidendi: Fair investigation principles necessitate that the investigating officer address all relevant submitted materials, and both the court and the IO must act in accordance with the accused's right to a fair trial under Article 21. The decision emphasized that the process must not hinder justice based on procedural technicalities. (Paras 9, 28)

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's basis for challenging proceedings. (Para 2 , 3)
2. procedural events following fir and investigations. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. petitioner's arguments regarding the investigation report. (Para 7 , 8)
4. fair investigation principles from judicial precedent. (Para 9 , 10)
5. rights of the accused under articles 21 and 14. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
6. respondent's stance on the fir and its implications. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
7. investigation compliance with sc directions. (Para 17 , 18)
8. limitations of the accused at charge-framing stage. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
9. prosecutor's duty to present a fair case. (Para 23 , 24)
10. restatement of the trial process following sc order. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
11. court's dismissal of petition and legal findings. (Para 29 , 30 , 31)

JUDGMENT :

Mitali Thakuria, J.

Heard Ms. M. Gupta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. V. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent No.1 and Ms. G. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/informant.

2. This application is filed under Section 528 of the BNSS , read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying for setting aside and quashing of the Investigating Report submitted by the investigating officer (IO) of All Women P. S. Case No. 05/2020 and the consequent order dated 13.09.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, Karbi Anglong Diphu in POCSO Case No. 37/2021, registered under Sections 354 /354-A of IPC read with Section 10 of POCSO Act.

3. The brief facts, leading to filing of the present petition is that the petitioner is facing trial in POCSO Case No. 37/2021, under Sections 354 and 354A of the IPC read with Section 10 of the POCSO Act. An FIR was registered as All Women P.S. Case No. 05/2020, in which, upon the prayer of the IO, Section 354 -A of the IPC and Section 3(1)(xi)(w)(i)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (in short SC/ST Act) were added. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a writ petition, numbered WP(C) No. 4523/2020, contending that since the caste status of respondent No. 2 and her daughter (the victim) was uncertain, the provisions of the 1989 Act should not be applied in the criminal proceeding against the petitioner. This Court, by order dated 21.10.2020 passed in WP(C) No. 4523/2020, held that until the question of validity of the ST certificates of respondent No. 2 and her daughter is decided by the competent authority, the provisions of the SC/ST Act shall not be applied in the All Women P.S. Case No. 05/2020. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 filed a writ appeal, numbered W.A. No. 190/2020, wherein the Hon’ble Appellate Court, by order dated 21.01.2021, declined to interfere with the earlier order passed in WP(C) No. 4523/2020 and directed the State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee to decide the validity of the caste certificates of respondent No. 2 and her daughter. Meanwhile, the investigation in the matter was to continue. Initially, the case was pending before the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup (M), but upon an application filed by the petitioner, it was transferred to the court of the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Diphu, and renumbered as POCSO Case No. 37/2021.

4. The petitioner thereafter filed an application before the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Diphu, seeking a direction to the IO to submit the investigation status report of the respondent No. 2 and the victim in respect of the offence under the SC/ST Act. However, the said Court dismissed the petition on 15.12.2023, observing that the IO had already filed the part charge sheet under Sections 354 /354-A of the IPC read with Section 10 of the POCSO Act, and hence there was no scope for further investigation or for calling any additional investigation report. The case was accordingly fixed for framing of charges. Challenging the order dated 15.12.2023, the petitioner filed Criminal Petition No. 104/2

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top