A prima facie case for trial is determined by the trial court based on the evidence presented, not during the appeal stage.

1. The appellant has filed the present Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A (1) of Schedule Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act )1989 against the impugned order dated 06.09.2023 passed in S.C. ATR No.21/2023 passed by Special Judge, Schedule Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act )1989 whereby charges under Section 304 of IPC and Section 3(2)

(v) of SC/ST (PoA), Act, 1989.

2. The prosecution alleges that on 21.04.2023 at 11:45 PM, the appellant negligently activated the power line at M.P.S.E.B. in village Indwar Basti, Bharewa Power House, without ensuring the line was properly cleared. As a result, the live wire, carrying 11,000 KV of electricity, caused the death of Anal Dipankar when he came into contact with it. The case was registered under Sections 338, 304 of IPC, and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, 1989. The police filed a charge sheet after completing the investigation.

3. Learned counsel for the4 appellant submits that there is no irregularites have been done by the appellant nor spreading the electricity wire thus no prima facie case is made out under Section 304 of IPC against the appellant. The Signature Not Verified omnibus allegation regarding ill-treatment or any negligence on the part appellant is disclosed in the whole final report and no eye witnesses who admitted that due to negligent on the part of the appellant, the cause of death has been done. It is further submitted that no independent witnesses have been examined, who supported the case of prosecution. From the contents of FIR, the offence under Section 304 of IPC and 3 (2) (v) of SCST Act is not made out against the appellant.

4. The Government Advocate argues that there is sufficient evidence on record to proceed with the trial. The circumstances of the case, including the manner in which the power line was activated and the potential danger it posed, establish a prima facie case of criminal negligence. Moreover, since the deceased belonged to a Scheduled Caste, charges under the SC/ST (PoA) Act are also applicable. The Government Advocate asserts that the trial court’s decision to frame charges is justified and should not be interfered with at this stage.

5. This Court is required to determine whether the charges framed by the trial court under Section 304 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act should be upheld or quashed at this stage.

6. It is well-established that at the stage of framing charges, the court does not conduct a detailed examination of the evidence. The question at this stage is whether a prima facie case exists to proceed with the trial. The sufficiency of the evidence and whether the offences are made out based on the evidence can only be conclusively determined by the trial court during the trial, where the evidence will be properly examined, cross-examined, and tested.

7. In the present case, while the appellant’s counsel has raised valid concerns about the lack of direct evidence and eyewitness testimony, the Signature Not Verified Government Advocate has pointed to the circumstances suggesting criminal negligence and the applicability of the SC/ST (PoA) Act. These are issues that require a full trial for thorough examination of evidence.

8. The trial court is in the best position to evaluate the evidence and determine whether the offences under Section 304 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act are made out based on the facts and circumstances of the case.

9. Considering that the matter involves the evaluation of evidence, this Court is of the view that it is best left to the trial court to decide whether a case on merit has been made out for the offences under Section 304 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed, with the liberty to t