Sonu Alias Ram Jee And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 9222 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Sonu Alias Ram Jee And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 27 August, 2025

Author: Shekhar Kumar Yadav

Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:150499
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3559 of 2025
 
Court No. - 83
 
HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J.

1. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short "the SC/ST Act") has been preferred by the appellants praying for setting aside the impugned order dated 02.06.2023, whereby the charge has been framed against the appellants in Sessions Case No. 1756 of 2023 (State v. Babu Omrey and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 406 of 2022 under Sections 147, 452, 323, 506, 504, 354, 354-B IPC and Sections 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha), 3(2)(5-A) of the SC/ST Act, Police Station Jariya, District Hamirpur.

2. Heard Mr Ajay Sengar, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr Thakur Azad Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State, as well as learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and perused the entire record.

3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 19.06.2022 at about 7:30 PM, while the complainant was returning home from Jalaun, he was allegedly stopped near the village road by a group of persons including the present appellants. They are said to have abused and assaulted him. When his family members intervened, including his sister-in-law, they too were beaten, resulting in injuries. Several villagers arrived and rescued them, whereafter the accused persons fled while hurling caste-related abuses.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that although the opposite party no. 2 alleged that the complainant and his female family members sustained injuries, the medical evidence shows that all injuries were simple in nature. It is argued that no specific role has been attributed to the appellants, nor are their names consistently specified by witnesses in their statements.

5. It is further submitted that the provisions of Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act can be attracted only where the accused is not a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and intentionally insults or intimidates a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in public view. In the present case, there is no averment in the FIR or other material collected by the Investigating Officer that the appellants are not members of SC/ST community, or that they intentionally humiliated the complainant in public view by using caste name.

6. Reliance is placed on Gorige Pentaiah v. State of A.P., 2009 CRL LJ 350, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in absence of a specific allegation that the accused did not belong to SC/ST community and had insulted the complainant in public view, prosecution under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act [pari materia with present Section 3(1)(r) and (s)] cannot be sustained.

7. Learned counsel has further placed reliance upon Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, (2020) 10 SCC 710, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that the sine qua non for applicability of Section 3(1)(x) (now Section 3(1)(r) and (s)) is that the accused, not being a member of SC/ST, must have intentionally insulted or intimidated the complainant in public view with intent to humiliate.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. submits that the charges have been rightly framed. It is urged that the reliance placed on Gorige Pentaiah is misconceived because the judgment was delivered prior to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2018. After the amendment, the legislature clarified and strengthened the protection available to SC/ST communities, and the earlier technical requirement of pleading that the accused did not belong to SC/ST community has lost significance. Learned AGA has also placed reliance on paragraph no. 21 of the judgement of Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, (2020) 10 SCC 710,

9. It is further submitted that the constitutional validity of the 2018 Amendment has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India, (2020) 4 SCC 727, wherein the Court held:

"The provisions of the Act have to be strictly applied to protect the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes from indignities, humiliations and harassment. The legislature, in its wisdom, restored the intent of the statute by the 2018 Amendment, and such protection cannot be diluted by judicial interpretation."

10. Thus, reliance on pre-amendment judgments, which diluted the Act, is no longer of assistance to the appellants. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the 2018 Amendment (Act 27 of 2018), which came into force on 20.08.2018, makes it clear that the law was amended "to nullify the effects of certain judicial pronouncements which had the effect of weakening the deterrent impact of the legislation" and to "reiterate the legislative intent to deliver justice to members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and to uphold their dignity." The amendment specifically provided that no preliminary inquiry is required for registration of an FIR and removed technical requirements that allowed accused persons to escape trial on the ground of absence of averments regarding caste status. This legislative background reinforces that the protective provisions of the Act must receive liberal construction in favour of the victim community.

11. It is further contended that subsequent rulings such as Union of India v. State of Maharashtra, (2020) 4 SCC 761 and Khuman Singh v. State of M.P., (2020) 18 SCC 763, emphasise that the amended Act must be interpreted to advance the object of preventing caste-based atrocities, otherwise, the legislative Intent behind the 2018 Amendment would be frustrated.

12. The issue for consideration is whether the impugned order framing charges suffers from such illegality that it warrants interference by this Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction under Section 14-A of the SC/ST Act.

13. The law is settled that at the stage of framing of charges, the Court is not required to conduct a meticulous evaluation of evidence, but only to see whether the material on record, if taken at face value, discloses the commission of the offence alleged. Sufficiency or truthfulness of evidence is a matter for trial.

14. The reliance placed on Gorige Pentaiah (supra) is distinguishable. That judgment was rendered in 2009, much prior to the 2018 Amendment (Act 27 of 2018). At that time, the complaint was required to specifically state that the accused was not a member of SC/ST community. The Amendment of 2018, however, removed such a technical requirement, making it clear that the thrust of the provision is to protect members of SC/ST communities against caste-based atrocities. This legislative change was upheld in Prathvi Raj Chauhan (supra). Therefore, the ratio in Gorige Pentaiah cannot be pressed into service in the present factual and statutory context.

15. As regards Hitesh Verma (supra), it is true that the Supreme Court reiterated the requirement of insult or intimidation being made in public view with intent to humiliate. However, the distinguishing feature is that in Hitesh Verma (supra) the dispute arose essentially out of a property matter between neighbours, and there was no allegation that the insult was committed in any public place or in public view. In the present case, however, the allegation is that the complainant was stopped and abused on a village road, in the presence of his family members and others who gathered at the spot. Prima facie, this constitutes a place within public view and therefore attracts the provisions of Section 3(1)(r) and (s).

16. Moreover, in the case of Hitesh Verma (supra), the Full Bench of Supreme Court in paragraph no. 21 has stated that:-

" In Gerige Pentaiah, one of the arguments raised was non-disclosure of the caste of the accused but the facts were almost ? similar as there was civil dispute between parties pending and the allegation was that the accused has called abuses in the name of the caste of the victim. The High Court herein has misread the judgment of this Court in Ashabai Machindra Adhagale as it was not a case about the caste of the victim but the fact that the accused was belonging to upper caste was not mentioned in the FIR. The High Court of Bombay had quashed the proceedings for the reason that the caste of the accused was not mentioned in the FIR, therefore, the offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act is not made out. In an appeal against the decision of the Bombay High Court, this Court held that this will be the matter of investigation as to whether the accused either belongs to or does not belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Therefore, the High Court erred in law to dismiss the quashing petition relying upon later larger Bench judgment."

17 The distinguishing feature is that in the present case, the incident allegedly occurred on a public village road, in the presence of family members and villagers, where caste-related abuses were hurled. This squarely brings the incident within "public view" under Section 3(1)(r) and (s).

18. Thus, the judgments cited by the appellants do not aid their case. Rather, post-amendment jurisprudence supports the view that once allegations of caste-based insult in public view are made, the issue must be tested at trial and cannot be quashed at the threshold.

19. This Court finds that the trial court has rightly proceeded to frame charges. The impugned order does not suffer from illegality, irregularity or perversity warranting interference.

21. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. The trial court shall proceed with the trial expeditiously, uninfluenced by any observation made herein.

August 27, 2025

RavindraKSingh