At the charge framing stage, the court must establish a prima facie case against the accused, and mere presence without overt action does not constitute an offense.

Order :

SANDEEP SHAH, J.

1. The appellant, by way of the present appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, has challenged the order dated 05.10.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Hanumangarh, whereby charges were framed against the appellant under Sections 323 /34 & 354(a) read with Section 34 of the IPC, Section 3(1)(11) read with Section 6 of the SC/ST Act and Section 3(1)(10) read with Section 6 of the SC/ST Act.

2. Originally, the appeal was filed by the present appellant along with Navdeep Singh and Mohar Singh. However, by way of order dated 05.07.2023, the appeal qua appellants- Navdeep Singh and Mohar Singh was dismissed as withdrawn and the appeal was confined for adjudication only qua appellant- Amandeep Singh @ Aman and further proceedings before the learned trial Court were stayed.

3. Brief facts of the case are that a complaint was lodged on 29.09.2012 by the complainant-Jassa Singh, against the appellant and other co-accused before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh. In the complaint, the complainant alleged that he had worked as a labourer at a brick kiln belonging to the appellant during the year 2011–12. Upon completion of the work session, he demanded a sum of Rs.50,000/-, which was allegedly due from the appellant. In response, the appellant and other co-accused asked the complainant to hand over his work diaries, stating that the outstanding amount would be paid thereafter. The complainant further stated that he was asked to vacate the kacha hut where he was residing. He insisted that he would vacate only after receiving the due payment. He asserted that on 29.09.2012, the appellant along with other co-accused threatened him with dire consequences, including threats to his life. Although he lodged a complaint at Police Station, Hanumangarh, but no action was taken. On the same day, the appellant and other co-accused allegedly came to his hut, physically assaulted him and accused No.3 twisted his arm. The appellant reportedly pointed a pistol at the complainant’s head, hurled caste-based abuses and threatened him to vacate the premises, failing which, he would be shot dead. It was further alleged that the appellant and co-accused No.2 grabbed the hand of the complainant’s wife and tore her clothes. When the complainant’s mother attempted to intervene, accused No.4-Jaspal Singh, allegedly hurled caste-based abuses at her as well. Thus, the complaint in question was filed, however, due to jurisdictional issues, the complaint was transferred to another Court. By order dated 08.10.2012, police was directed to undertake an investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Pursuant to which, an FIR was registered on 12.10.2012. During the investigation, the police examined the complainant Jassa Singh, his mother Manjeet Kaur, his wife Karamjeet Kaur, neighbors Deshraj @ Dinesh Kumar, Rajendra Kumar, Gurpreet Singh, Sh. Rambhaj (ASI), and Sh. Sandeep Kumar (a friend of the appellant). After thorough investigation, the police submitted a negative final report, asserting that the appellant was not present at the scene of the incident, as confirmed by mobile tower location data. It was further stated that the allegations made by the complainant were not supported by the statements of his mother and wife. The appellant’s plea of alibi was found to be substantiated by statements of other witnesses. Moreover, no case was found to be made out against the other co-accused. Post filing of the negative final report by t