Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mohan Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:7679) on 6 February, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:7679]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 1024/2024
1. Mohan Singh S/o Kan Singh, Aged About 58 Years,
2. Pushker Singh S/o Mohan Singh, Aged About 27 Years,
Both R/o Uthdo Ki Bhagal, Losing P.s. Badgaon Dist.
Udaipur, Raj.
(At Present Lodged In Central Jail, Udaipur)
----Appellants
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Anita Chouhan W/o Tej Singh @ Jay, R/o Uthdo Ki Bhagal,
Losing P.s. Badgaon Dist. Udaipur, Raj. At Present
Residing At Meera Nagar, Sukher, Udaipur, Raj.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pritam Joshi
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sonu Manawat, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
06/02/2025
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.
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
[2025:RJ-JD:7679] (2 of 5) [CRLAS-1024/2024]
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.
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.
[2025:RJ-JD:7679] (3 of 5) [CRLAS-1024/2024]
Despite service, no one appeared on behalf of respondent
No.2.
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.
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;
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'.
[2025:RJ-JD:7679] (4 of 5) [CRLAS-1024/2024]
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. 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.
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
[2025:RJ-JD:7679] (5 of 5) [CRLAS-1024/2024]
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."
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.
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.
The appeal stands allowed as above.
Stay application and pending applications, if any, also stand
decided.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
118-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
