J U D G E M E N T

Present appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for brevity 'the Act') against the order dated 05/09/2022 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (PA) Act, Sagar (MP), whereby, charges under Section 294, 506 Part-II of IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) & 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant, after referring to FIR as well as caste certificate, submits that in FIR, name of complainant is mentioned as Smt.

Dropti Kori W/o Late Hotilal Kori, R/o Laxmipura ward, Thana Kotwali, Sagar whereas in caste certificate name of Smt.Dropti Bai D/o of Shri Dattulal and Smti.Sri Bai, village Hardanakhedi, Teh.Basoda, District Vidisha is mentioned. Thus, there is nothing on record to show that caste certificate, which is on record, is of complainant whose name is mentioned in FIR. Further, after referring to contants of FIR as well as statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. of complainant, and relying upon Prafulla Kumar Jaiswal Vs. State of M.P and others (in MCRC No.19835/2017 dated 22.09.2023, it is contended that even prima facie ingredients constituting offence under Section 506 and 294 of IPC & Section 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (PA) Act are not established. Therefore, charge above section, cannot be framed. Further, after referring to Ramchandra Narayan Naik Vs. State of Karnataka, 2004 (4) Crimes 414 and Sitaram S/o Balaji Harijan and Others Vs. Sitaram S/o Shankar Harijan and Another, 2003(2) MPLJ, it is urged that at the stage of framing of charge only prima facie case is required to be same. Further, after relying on Sitaram (supra), it is also urged that if there is no possibility of case ending in conviction, then, courts should not waste time for holding trial. On above grounds, it is urged that appeal filed by the appellant be allowed and appellant be discharged.

3. Learned counsel for the objector as well as State submit that at the stage of framing of charge only prima facie case is to seen. From FIR as well as other evidence on record, it is clearly established that complainant belonged to SC category and there is prima facie sufficient material for framing charges under Section 294 and 506 part-II & Sections 3(i)(da), 3(i)(dha) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (PA) Act. Name of appellant is mentioned in FIR and caste certificate and incident has occurred outside the house. Learned trial Court has not committed any illegality in framing charges. Hence, appeal filed by the appellant be dismissed.

4. Heard, perused record of the case.

Legal Principles applicable in regard to framing of charge/an application seeking discharge :- 5. Before proceeding further & examining the facts of the case, I would like to refer basic/fundamental legal Principles applicable in regard to framing of charge/an application seeking discharge.

6. Hon’ble Apex Court in M.E. Shivalingamurthy Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2020) 2 SCC 768, after referring to (2011) 14 SCC 608, State of A.P. V. Obulapuram Mining Co. (P) Ltd., (2010) 2 SCC 398, P. Vijayan V. State of Kerala, (2005) 1 SCC 568, State of Orissa V. Debendra Nath Padhi. (2002) 2 SCC 135, Dilawar Balu Kurane v. State of Maharashtra, (1995) 4 SCC 181, State of J &K V. Sudarshan Chakkar, (1979) 3 SCC 4, Union of India Vs. Prafulla Samal, has held as under:- “17. This is an area covered by a large body of case law. We refer to a recent judgment which has referred to the earlier decisions, viz., P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala and another (2010) 2 SCC 398 and discern the following principles:

17.1. If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only as distinguished from grave suspicion, the Trial Judge would be empowered to discharge the accused.

17.2. The Trial Judge is not a mere Post Office to frame the charge at the instance of the prosecution.

17.3. The Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is su