The Allahabad High Court while allowing an appeal held that merely the victim belonging to SC/ST community is not enough for implicating the accused persons under the sections of SC/ST Act.

A Single Bench of Justice Sadhna Rani (Thakur) passed this order while hearing a criminal appeal filed by Seema Bharadwaj.

The appeal has been preferred against the entire proceedings as well as the summoning order dated 2.5.2023 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act, Ghaziabad in case under sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C and section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, police station Kavinagar District Ghaziabad.

As per the facts of the case, an FIR was lodged by one Smt Neetu against the appellant on 29.9.2022 at 20.11 hours regarding the incident of the same day at 13.30 hours that the first informant is the caretaker /household help in the house of the mother of the appellant. The appellant was having a property dispute with her brother Deepak Tyagi. She was living in the house since 26.2.2022 against the wishes of her family members. She used to quarrel with her mother, administering the wrong medicines forcibly, as a result, the mind of her mother was disturbed.

The appellant used to say that she had prepared a forged will and on the basis of that forged will she would take possession over the house in dispute. As the first informant is a caretaker /house keep on behalf of the mother of the appellant, the appellant wanted her to leave the work of the house in dispute, so she used to abuse, hurl caste based words and thrashed her.

On 4.5.2022, 9.5.2022 and 9.6.2022, the appellant thrashed the first informant/ other servants of the quarter. The appellant hurled caste based words and abusive language against the first informant so that she may leave her job.

Regarding the incident dated 9.6.2022, an FIR under sections 342, 147, 307, 504, 506 I.P.C was lodged as case crime no. 1123 of 2022 on 21.8.2022 by the first informant- Neetu against the appellant and one Ramnika Bharadwaj.

On 29.9.2022 when the first informant was going for her household work in the house of the mother of the appellant, 5-6 unknown persons stopped her on the road at about 1.30 P.M. They all were equipped with batons, pistols and knives etc. They started hurling wild abuses, caste based words and gave her a threat not to work in the house of the mother of the appellant. They also asked her to withdraw the above case filed by her against the appellant.

On her refusal they disclosed that as per the instruction of Seema/ the appellant, Ramansh and Ramanuj, they would put her to death and with the intention of committing her murder, they assaulted her with knives and batons. They opened fire in the air and thrashed her causing her grievous injuries. On her hue and cry, the passersby Susmikant Mahanti and Rohit Kumar Singhal son of Deepak Kumar rescued her from the clutches of the culprits and took her to the police station thereafter her medical was done.

The victim fears for her life from the appellant. Because of paucity of means, she is pursuing her work at the house of the appellant’s mother.

On the basis of this FIR, after investigation, the charge sheet was filed against appellant only under sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C and sections 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act and the investigation was kept continued against 5-6 unknown persons and other named person in the FIR.

The Court noted that,

It is clear that the appellant has approached this court against the cognizance order passed against her wherein the cognizance under section 323, 504, 506 I.P.C and section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act was taken against the appellant. The court cannot imagine that under what sections charge would be framed by the trial court. The court has to look into the facts as they are before the court in the condition and before the court there is only cognizance order dated 2.5.2023 whereby the cognizance has been taken against the appellant u/s 323, 504, 506 I.P.C and section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act.

Admittedly, at the time of the incident the appellant was not present on the spot. So in the opinion of the court, in her absence on the spot cognizance under section 323, 504, 506 I.P.C and section 3(2) va of SC/ST Act cannot be taken against the appellant.

For section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act also not mere the knowledge of the first informant being a person belonging SC/ST community is enough for the accused to implicate him but as interpreted by the Apex Court in judgment Hitesh Verma Versus The State of Uttarakhand and Another, Criminal Appeal dated 05.11.2020 mere the victim belonging to SC/ST community is not enough for implicating the accused persons under the sections of SC/ST Act.

What is necessary is that the offended words must have been used by the accused person against the victim with intent to humiliate her/him because of her/him belonging to the SC/ST community. The motive behind the incident as per FIR is that the appellant did not want the first informant to work as house help in her mother’s house. The incident did not take place because the first informant belongs to the SC/ST community.

“In the case, the FIR was lodged under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 352, 307, 120-B I.P.C and section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act. After investigation the Investigating Officer filed chargesheet only under sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C and section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act against the appellant. The investigation against rest known and unknown accused persons is still continuing. The trial court has taken cognizance, only on the basis of charge-sheet under the aforesaid sections against the appellant. The order impugned clearly indicates that the trial court has not used its judicial mind while passing the impugned order because as mentioned in the order if the trial court had gone through the documents on record, it would have gone through the FIR also. The presence of the appellant on spot is not shown by the first informant in the FIR. So the cognizance under section 323, 504, 506 I.P.C and section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act against the appellant is not possible. If the cognizance had been taken under section 120-B I.P.C along with other sections then the position would have been different.

Thus, it is found that the trial court has not applied its judicial mind while passing the impugned order and has passed the impugned order in a mechanical manner”, the Court observed while allowing the appeal.

“The cognizance order dated 2.5.2023 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act, Ghaziabad, in case under sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C and section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, police station Kavinagar District Ghaziabad against the appellant is set aside.

The trial court is directed to pass a fresh order in this matter after going through the above discussion within two months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order before that court”, the Court ordered.

The Supreme Court will on Friday hear a petition filed by Cricketer-turned-politician Navjot Singh Sidhu, urging the Apex Court not to punish him any further in a road rage case, which was going on for the past 33 years.

A Bench comprising Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul will take up the review petition demanding enhancement of Sidhu’s punishment.

Earlier in 2018, Sidhu was held guilty under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code (voluntary hurt) that entails a maximum jail term of one year or with a fine up to Rs 1,000 or both.

The bench had in September, 2018, issued notice to Sidhu on the limited question of revisiting the quantum of punishment awarded to him by the Apex Court in its May 2018 decision that held him guilty for causing hurt and directed payment of fine of Rs 1,000.

Also Read: Supreme Court asks Centre if bitcoins or any cryptocurrency is legal or not

The review petitions have been filed by the family members of 65-year-old Gurnam Singh, who died in the road rage incident involving Sidhu and his friend .

In an affidavit in response to a court notice issued in September 2018 , Sidhu says his impeccable political & sporting career should be considered. Sidhu claimed that he has worked for the welfare of people at large as a Parliamentarian.

It is submitted that in the present case, after due appreciation of the material on record and considering the relevant factors such as time elapsed from date of incident, antecedents of Respondent – Accused (Sidhu), no recovery of weapon from him , no past enmity  etc.  , a sentence of maximum fine permissible for Section 323 has already been imposed.  Whether this aspect i.e.  , the discretion exercised by the Supreme Court in imposing a sentence of fine is correct or not , cannot be a ground to review the decision.  It is settled law that my possibility of alternative view on the sentence imposed is not a ground for entertaining a review.  

Also Read: Amazon-Future deal: Delhi High Court adjourns hearing to Monday

Further the affidavit states that more than three decades have passed since the date of the incident.  The Top  Court in numerous cases considered a fine as an adequate punishment if there has been a long passage of time from the date of offence.  The respondent faced trial between 1994 and 1999 and abided by all the directions of the trial court and was eventually acquitted.  Against the order of acquittal , an appeal was preferred by the state and the complainant i.e.  , the petitioner  whereupon theHigh Court of Punjab and Haryana was pleased to set aside the order of acquittal.  

“.. the answering respondent (Sidhu) herein, through various philanthropic gestures has made contributions towards social welfare by helping those in need of immediate financial assistance and by contributing to the development of environmental projects. The above stated indisputable facts exhibit that the answering respondent has been a law-abiding citizen and ought not be punished any further,”

-the affidavit said.