The court established that systemic biases in law enforcement and procedural violations necessitate independent investigations to uphold the rights of marginalized communities.

JUDGMENT :

SAMEER JAIN, J.

1. The instant criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 on behalf of the accused-appellants. The accused-appellants were arrested in connection with FIR No. 168/2023 registered at Police Station Peeplu, District Tonk for the offense under Sections 147, 148, 149,302 and 201 of IPC and 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.

2. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. V.R. Bajwa, appearing on behalf of the accused-appellants, has submitted as under:

2.1 That the FIR was registered with a delay i.e. three days after the date of the incident. In this regard, it was averred that the FIR was registered on 29.06.2023 whereas, the alleged incident is stated to have occurred on 27.06.2023 at 10:00PM.

2.2 That despite due knowledge, the said delay of three days was not adequately explained by the complainant-Pintu, who happens to be the brother of the deceased.

2.3 That the accused-appellants are young students aged 20 and 23 years, with no criminal antecedents whatsoever. They are merely employees of the MRS Group/lease holder, tasked with the duty to protect and safeguard the river bed from illegal mining of sand/bajri.

2.4 That the Medical Board has drawn out the postmortem report, which when coupled with the panchnama, reflects the existence and/or infliction of simple injuries on the person of the deceased, as opposed to any fatal//grievous injuries. Correspondingly, the cause of death is not attributed to any injury per se. Rather, the death is stated to have occurred on account of compression of the deceased’s neck associated with the obstruction of the airway due to contents of vomit.

2.5 That a false and fabricated case is drawn against the accused-appellants by the prosecution. In this regard, learned counsel averred that the FSL Report duly reflects that at the time of death, the deceased had consumed a significant quantity of alcohol, estimated value of which was 92.00 mg. from 100 ml. Therefore, the allegations against the accused-appellants are unsubstantiated and merely an after-thought.

2.6 That material witnesses, including the brother of the deceased/complainant, have not supported the story of the prosecution. No case is made out under Section 302 of IPC. In this regard, learned counsel submitted that even the fact of registration of FIR was on account of political pressure from the jurisdictional MLA/MP, which is also reflected as per the record before this Court. Therefore, the allegations leveled against the accused-appellants lack substance.

2.7 That the accused-appellants have been in judicial custody for a considerable period of time i.e. more than one year, which is an infringement on their liberties enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant, Mr. Mohit Balwada, contended that the present appeal lacks substance and therefore, no interference is warranted qua the order impugned dated 16.04.2024, which is squarely well-reasoned and in conformity with the settled position of law. In order to elaborate upon the said contention, learned counsel submitted that the offense as alleged was targeted, as the deceased belonged to the marginalized SC/ST community. The deceased was merely 22 years of age. During the commission of the said offense, a cruel and brutal attack was carried out on the person of the deceased, which is reflected by the 14 injuries reflected in the postmortem report, including the cutting of the deceased’s genitals and tongue.

4. In furtherance of the aforesaid, Mr. Balwada placed reliance upon the postmortem report, more specifically upon Injury A, which is stated to be grievous in nature, being the primary cause of death. In this background, learned counsel argued that despite said postmortem report, which is rather clear in terms of the infliction of injuries, the medical opinion so furnished by the State authorities regarding the cause of death to