Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 227 (RAJ)

Mohan Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2025-02-06

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2025
Order : 1. The instant criminal appeal under Section 14A(1) of SC/ST Act has been filed by the appellants challenging the order dated 20.06.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Udaipur in Special Sessions Case No.52/2024 only to the extent of framing of charge for offence under Section 3(2)(v)(va) of SC/ST Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 25.01.2024, complainant/respondent No.2 submitted a written report to the Police alleging that on 24.01.2024, the accused persons including the appellants assaulted his husband Tej Singh and one Sonu Ganchi with deadly weapon. On the basis of the said report, Police registered the FIR and started investigation. On completion of investigation, Police filed charge-sheet against the appellants before the trial court for offences under Sections 341, 302, 34, 427 IPC and Section 3(2)(v)/3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act. The trial Judge, vide order dated 20.06.2024, directed to frame charges against the appellants for the offences under Section 341, 427/34, 302/34 IPC and Section 3(2)(v)(va) of SC/ST Act. Hence, this appeal to the extent of framing of charge under SC/ST Act. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that ingredients of Section 3(2)(v)(va) of SC/ST Act are not prima facie made out against the appellants from the allegations of the prosecution. Counsel submits that there should be specific allegation for making out offence under Section 3(2)(v)(va) of SC/ST Act. In the present case, there is not an iota of evidence which suggests that the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v)(va) of SC/ST is made out against the appellants. Counsel submits that the appellants were not having knowledge that one of the deceased namely Sunil @ Sonu Gancha belongs to SC/ST community. Thus, the impugned order to the extent of framing charge under SC/ST Act is per se illegal and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside to that extent. In support of his contention, counsel has cited the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Shashikant Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., Cr. Appeal arising out of SLP (Cr.) No.5323/2023, decided on 01.12.2023 Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned order of framing charge and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 4. Despite service, no one appeared on behalf of respondent No.2. 5. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., Cr. Appeal arising out of SLP (Cr.) No.5323/2023, decided on 01.12.2023 Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned order of framing charge and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 4. Despite service, no one appeared on behalf of respondent No.2. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned order as well as materiel available on record. 6. Section 3(2)(v)(va) of SC/ST Act is reproduced here for ready reference : Section 3 :- Punishments for offences of atrocities :- (2)— Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe :- (v) commits any offence under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more against a person or property knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member, shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine; (va) commits any offence specified in the Schedule, against a person or property, knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member, shall be punishable with such punishment as specified under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) for such offences and shall also be liable to fine; 7. From a bare perusal of the provision, it is crystal clear that for the above offence to be constituted, there must be an allegation that the accused not being a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe committed an offence under the IPC punishable for a term of 10 years or more against a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe knowing that such person belongs to such ‘community’. 8. From perusal of the material collected during investigation, it is manifest that the incident had occurred due to an old property dispute between the family of accused appellants and the family of deceased Tej Singh. In the present case, there is no evidence on record which shows that while committing the alleged offences, the appellants were having knowledge that one of the deceased namely Sunil @ Sonu Gancha belongs to SC/ST community. In the present case, there is no evidence on record which shows that while committing the alleged offences, the appellants were having knowledge that one of the deceased namely Sunil @ Sonu Gancha belongs to SC/ST community. Thus, prima facie, ingredients of offence punishable under Section 3(2) (v)(va) of SC/ST Act are not made out from the admitted allegations of the prosecution and to this extent, the charge framed against the appellant is baseless. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shashikant Sharma (supra) observed as under : “16.Be that as it may, as per the highest case of prosecution, the only offence under IPC punishable with imprisonment of 10 years or more being the offence under Section 307 IPC has been applied on the basis of the gun shot allegedly fired by the accused Vinod Upadhyay upon Rinku Thakur, which admittedly did not result into any corresponding injury. After perusal of the entire material on record, we have no hesitation in concluding that from the admitted case set up by the prosecution, there is no such allegation that the offence under IPC punishable with imprisonment of 10 years or more was committed by an accused of upper caste upon a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste community with the knowledge that such person belonged to the said community. 17. Hence, there is merit in the contention of learned counsel representing the appellants that prima facie ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act are not made out from the admitted allegations of prosecution and to this extent, the charge framed against the accused appellants is groundless.” 10. In view of aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion, that the learned trial court has committed error in framing charge against the appellants for offence under Section 3(2)(v)(va) of SC/ST Act. 11. Hence, the impugned order to the extent of charge framed against the accused appellants for the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v)(va) of the SC/ST Act is hereby quashed and set aside. However, the trial of the accused for the remaining offences shall continue. 12. The appeal stands allowed as above. 13. Stay application and pending applications, if any, also stand decided.