Rutibhan Singh vs State of U.P.

B.K. Rathi,J.

This revision has been preferred against framing of the charges against the applicant by Ilnd Additional Sessions Judge, Moradabad on 131298. The charges have been framed for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 302, and 307, 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 under Section 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 iribe as mentioned in the Act. This contention does not appear to be correct. The complainant has filed documents along with the counteraffidavit, 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 maineontention of the learned counsel for the revisionists that is 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 thecopies of thestatements of the complainant and of other witnesses of fact recorded under Section 161, Cr. P.C. The complainant 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 than heir 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 accusedapplicants 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 ol''tencc under Section 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 under Section 3(ii) (v) of S.C./S.T. Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989. The charge for the offence has been framed by the learned 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 under Section 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 Ilnd Additional Sessions Judge and he may, if consider proper, reframe the charges or modify them.