Supreme Court quashes charges under SC/ST Act in political rivalry case: Shashikant Sharma & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2023) INSC 1036 (01 December 2023)

Date of the Judgment: 01 December 2023
Citation: (2023) INSC 1036
Judges: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J., Sandeep Mehta, J.

Can charges under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) be sustained if the alleged offense lacks a direct connection to the victim’s caste identity? The Supreme Court recently addressed this question in a case involving political rivalry, ultimately quashing charges under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. This judgment clarifies the necessity of establishing a clear link between the offense and the victim’s caste for charges under the SC/ST Act to stand.

Case Background

The case stems from a political rivalry where the accused appellants allegedly attacked members of the complainant party. The prosecution alleged that one of the accused, Vinod Upadhyay, fired a gunshot at Rinku Thakur, and subsequently, casteist abuses were hurled at Virender Kumar, a member of the Scheduled Caste community. The accused were charged under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The accused appellants filed an application for discharge under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), which was rejected by the Special Judge SC/ST(POA) Act, Hathras. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad also rejected the appeal against this order. The accused then approached the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The core legal provision in question is Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, which states:

“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.”

This provision stipulates that for an offense to be punishable under the SC/ST Act, the accused must commit an offense under the IPC, punishable with imprisonment of 10 years or more, against a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, knowing that the victim belongs to such community.

Arguments

The arguments presented by both sides are summarized below:

• Appellants’ Arguments:
  • The primary argument of the appellants was that the ingredients of Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act are not met. They contended that the alleged offense under the IPC (attempt to murder under Section 307 of the IPC) was directed at Rinku Thakur, not a member of the Scheduled Caste community.
  • The appellants argued that the casteist abuses were allegedly hurled at Virender Kumar, a member of the Scheduled Caste community, *after* the alleged gunshot at Rinku Thakur. Thus, the offense under the IPC was not committed against a person known to be a member of the Scheduled Caste community.
  • The appellants also argued that the entire prosecution case was fabricated due to political vendetta. They pointed out that the medical report of Rinku Thakur did not confirm any gunshot injury, but rather a boil/abscess on his thigh.
  • The appellants conceded that the challenge to the charges under the IPC would require extensive evaluation of evidence and did not press on that point.
• Respondents’ Arguments:
  • The respondents argued that the accused appellants launched a concerted attack on the complainant party due to political rivalry.
  • They submitted that the FIR was registered after great difficulty due to political interference. The investigation was manipulated at the instance of a former Cabinet Minister.
  • They contended that the statement of Virender Kumar under Section 161 of the CrPC clearly showed that after the gunshot incident, the accused hurled caste-based abuses at him and threatened him.
  • The respondents stated that the allegations in the FIR and statements of witnesses disclosed the necessary ingredients of the offenses, and there was no scope for interference.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

• Whether the ingredients of Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act are met based on the admitted allegations of the prosecution.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Judgment

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• Suresh @ Pappu Bhudharmal Kalani Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2001 SC 1375 – The court referred to this case to highlight that if the admitted evidence does not establish the necessary ingredients of an offense, the court is not obligated to frame charges.

The Court held that the charge under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act was groundless because the offense under the IPC, punishable with 10 years or more, was not committed against a person known to be a member of the Scheduled Caste community.

The Court noted that the alleged casteist abuses were hurled at Virender Kumar *after* the alleged gunshot at Rinku Thakur. Thus, the offense under the IPC was not committed against a person known to be a member of the Scheduled Caste community.

The Court quoted Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act to emphasize the requirements for the offense:

“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.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of evidence showing that the alleged offense under the IPC was committed against a person known to be a member of the Scheduled Caste community. The sequence of events, where the casteist abuses were allegedly hurled after the alleged gunshot incident, was crucial in the court’s reasoning. The court emphasized that the ingredients of Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act were not met.

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the legal interpretation of Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act and how it applied to the facts of the case. The factual aspects, such as the sequence of events and the medical report, played a secondary role in the decision.

Logical Reasoning

The court considered the argument that the casteist abuses were hurled at Virender Kumar after the alleged gunshot at Rinku Thakur. This sequence was crucial in the court’s decision.

The court did not explicitly address the political vendetta argument for the purpose of the SC/ST Act charge, but it noted that the medical report did not support the gunshot claim.

The court’s decision was based on the legal interpretation of Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act and its application to the facts of the case. The court held that the necessary ingredients of the offense were not met.

The court stated:

“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’.”

The court also noted:

“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.”

The court concluded:

“Hence, there is merit in the contention of learned counsel representing the appellants that prima facie ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 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.”

There were no dissenting opinions. The bench consisted of two judges, both of whom agreed on the decision.

The decision implies that for charges under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act to be valid, there must be a clear connection between the offense under the IPC and the victim’s caste identity. The knowledge of the victim’s caste must be present at the time of the commission of the IPC offense.

The court did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles but rather clarified the existing provision of the SC/ST Act.

Key Takeaways

• Charges under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act require a direct link between the IPC offense and the victim’s caste identity.
• The knowledge of the victim’s caste must be present at the time of the commission of the IPC offense.
• Casteist abuses hurled after an IPC offense may not be sufficient to constitute an offense under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.
• The medical report not supporting the gunshot claim was a factor in the court’s consideration.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the trial of the accused for the remaining offenses under the IPC shall continue. The case was transferred from the Special Court to the Court of Sessions. The bonds submitted by the accused shall remain in force until the conclusion of the trial. The non-bailable warrants issued against the accused were quashed.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that for an offense to be constituted under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, the accused must commit an offense under the IPC against a person knowing that such person is a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community. The judgment clarifies that the knowledge of the victim’s caste must be present at the time of the commission of the IPC offense. This case does not change the previous position of law, but it reinforces the existing interpretation of Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court quashed the charges under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act against the accused appellants, emphasizing that the necessary ingredients of the offense were not met. The court clarified that for such charges to stand, the offense under the IPC must be committed against a person known to be a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community at the time of the offense. The trial for the remaining offenses under the IPC will continue.