Court Not Obligated To Frame Charges If Offences Are Not Made Out From Admitted Evidence Of Prosecution: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently (on December 01) reiterated that if the necessary ingredients of an offence are not made out from the admitted evidence of the prosecution, then the Court is not obligated to frame a charge for such an offence against the accused.

"...there is also a long line of precedents that from the admitted evidence of the prosecution as reflected in the documents filed by the Investigating Officer in the report under Section 173 CrPC, if the necessary ingredients of an offence are not made out then the Court is not obligated to frame charge for such offence against the accused," the Court said. Reference was made to judgment rendered in the case of Suresh @ Pappu Bhudharmal Kalani Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2001 SC 1375.

The Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta made these observations while deciding an appeal against the order of the Allahabad High Court. In its impugned order, the High Court affirmed the trial court's order to reject the discharge application moved by the accused persons/ appellants. Pertinently, charges framed against the accused were under several provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, including Section 307 (Attempt to Murder). Apart from this, the accused were also booked under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

In the instant case, an FIR was lodged against the appellants. Therein, it was alleged that on 08.02.2017, when the informant and his son were campaigning for a party, the appellants, along with other accused persons, intercepted them on the way and opened fire upon the informant's son, due to which he sustained injuries. Additionally, it was alleged that the appellants had abused one Virendra by using caste-indicative words and assaulting him.

It may be noted that the discharge plea, with respect to the offences under IPC, was not pressed as the same would have required extensive evaluation of evidence. However, with respect to Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, it was strongly contended that its ingredients are prima facie not made out. 

Apart from this, the appellants assailed the falsity of the prosecution case and contended that the same is a part of a political vendetta. Moreover, a medical report was also relied upon to aver that there was no corresponding gunshot injury was found.

The Court, after examining the relevant provision, reiterated the ingredients for the constitution of an offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. Firstly, the accused person should not be a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Secondly, the offence committed shall be punishable under the IPC for ten years or more. Lastly, the person against whom such an offence is committed shall be a member of such community, and the accused should have knowledge of the same.

“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.'”

Moving forward, the Court also observed that as per the material on record, there is no such allegation that the offence under IPC, punishable with ten or more years of imprisonment, was committed by an accused of upper caste upon a person belonging to the SC community with the knowledge that such person belonged to the said community.

The Court also took note of the medical report and observed that among charges farmed under IPC, the only offence which is punishable with 10 years of imprisonment or more in Section 307. However, the same was invoked on the basis of the gunshot, which admittedly did not result in any corresponding injury.

“Be that as it may, as per the highest case of the 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.”

In view of the same, the Court concluded that from the admitted allegations of prosecution, the prima facie ingredients of the concerned offence are not made out. Thus, the Court held that the charge framed under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act is groundless.

However, the Court while setting aside the impugned order to this limited extent made it clear that the trail with respect to other offences shall continue.

Senior Advocate R Basant represented the appellant. AAG Sharan Dev Singh Thakur represented the State of UP.

Case Title: SHASHIKANT SHARMA vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH., Diary No.- 16199 - 2023

Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1037

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment