Ratibhan Singh and Another vs State of U.P.

B.K. Rathi, J.—This revision has been preferred against framing of the charges against the Applicants by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Moradabad, on 18.12.98. The charges have been framed for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 302 and 149, I.P.C. and Section 3(ii)(v) of S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The only grievance of the Applicants is regarding the charge u/s 3(ii)(v) of S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act; and framing of other charges has not been challenged before me.

I have heard Sri D.S Mishra, learned Counsel for the revisionists and Sri A.P. Srivastava and the learned A.G.A. for opposite party.

The first contention which has been faintly pressed, is that the victims of this case are not of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe as mentioned in the Act. This contention does not appear to be correct. The complainant has filed documents along with the counter-affidavit, which show that on the basis of the commission of this crime, compensation has been awarded to the victims under S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Therefore, no finding can be recorded at this stage without any evidence that the victims are not of the caste as mentioned in the Act.

The main contention of the learned Counsel for the revisionists is that there is no evidence of commission of any offence under the said Act. The learned Counsel for the revisionist has taken me through the F.I.R. and also the copies of the statements of the complainant and of other witnesses of fact recorded u/s 161, Code of Criminal Procedure The consistent allegation is that the victims were abused, threatened and assaulted by the Applicants. However, there is no allegation regarding any aspersion of their caste nor there is allegation that their caste was disclosed nor they were assaulting saying that they belong to the particular caste. Even in the entire statements it is not alleged that accused-Applicants have disclosed the caste of the victims. Therefore, simply for the reason that the victims belong to the caste covered under the Act, does not amount to an offence u/s 3(ii)(v) of S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

There is a complete absence of any evidence of commission of crime u/s 3(ii)(v) of S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The charge for the offence has been framed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Moradabad, without any evidence. The revision is, therefore, fit to be allowed to this extent only.

The revision is allowed and the charge u/s 3(ii)(v) of S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 framed against the Applicants is quashed. However, it is clarified that the Applicants shall be prosecuted for other charges framed by the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge and he may, if consider proper, re-frame the charges or modify them.