JUDGMENT

Gajendra Kumar, J.

Heard Shri Manish Tiwary, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Pankaj Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the appellants, Shri Swetashwa Agarwal, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This appeal has been preferred under section 14 A (1) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred as SC/ST Act) against the judgment and order dated 14.03.2023, passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST (PA) Act, Hathras, in Session Case No.228 of 2021 (State v. Shashikant and others) arising out of Case Crime No.218 of 2017, under Section 147 , 148, 149, 323, 307, 504 I.P.C. and section 3(2)(5) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, P.S. Sahpau, District Hathras, whereby, the application filed by the appellants for discharge, has been rejected.

3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the appellants that the impugned order is against facts and law thus, liable to be set aside. The respondent No.2. has lodged an FIR against the appellants and other accused persons making false and baseless allegations. It is further submitted that there is a cross-version of this FIR and the present FIR has been lodged as a counterblast to the earlier one which was lodged from the appellants side. It is also submitted that the injury report of the injured is fake and concocted as the opinion formed by the Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:74326 doctor about the same. The allegation that appellants have abused one Virendra who was an activist of the informant's party by using caste indicative words and assaulted him, is thoroughly false. Referring to the facts of the matter, it was submitted that no prima facie case is made out against appellants and thus, the trial court committed error by rejecting the discharge application of the appellants.

4. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 have vehemently opposed the appeal and argued that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. In the FIR as well as in the statement of witnesses recorded during investigation, there are allegations that appellants-accused have assaulted and abused them by using caste indicative words.

5. I have considered rival submissions and perused record.

6. It is well settled that at the stage of framing of charge or considering discharge application, the court is not to analyse reliability of the material on record. The evidentiary value and its credibility has to be considered at the stage of trial. Marshalling and appreciation of evidence is not in the domain of the court at that point of time. At the stage of consideration of an application for discharge, the court has to proceed with an assumption that the material brought on record by prosecution is true and such material and documents have to be considered with a view to find out whether the facts emerging from such material when taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the offence.

7. In State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh [(1977) 4 SCC 39], considering the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code, it was held that at the stage of framing of charge it is not obligatory for the Judge to consider in any detail and weigh in a sensitive balance whether the facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not. At that stage, the court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial i