REDACTED vs. The State & Anr.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on:09.09.2024
+ CRL.REV.P. 790/2022
MS. XXXX ..... Petitioner
versus
THE STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents
+ CRL.REV.P. 724/2023
THE STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) ..... Petitioner
versus
DHARAMBIR SINGH ..... Respondent
Present: Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP for the State alongwith Ms.
Kanika Gupta, Mr. Ayesha Gupta, Ms. Kanishka & Ms.
Aastha Srivastava, Advocates & SI Kunal Kishor (P.S.
Roop Nagar).
Mr. Ravi Bassi, Advocate for Respondent
CORAM
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
JUDGMENT
CRL.M.A. 17829/2023 in CRL.REV.P. 724/2023 (condonation of
delay of 216 days in filing the present petition)
1. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is
allowed, and the delay in filing the present petition is condoned.
2. The application stands disposed of.
CRL.REV.P. 790/2022 & CRL.M.A. 23934/2022
CRL.REV.P. 724/2023
3. The present petitions are filed challenging the order dated
08.09.2022 (hereafter ‘ the impugned order ’) passed by the learned
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SHIKHA SEHGAL
Signing Date:13.09.2024
20:05:58
CRL.REV.P. 790/2022 & CRL.REV.P. 724/2023 Page 1 of 20

Additional Sessions Judge ( ASJ ), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in SC No.
497/2010 arising out of FIR No. 413/2014 dated 26.09.2014,
registered at Police Station Roop Nagar, for offence under Section
345A (1) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘ IPC ’).
4. The learned ASJ, by the impugned order, had discharged the
respondent/accused for the offences punishable under the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
(‘ SC/ST Act ’).
Brief Facts
5. It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant had been
employed as teacher at Dhanpat Virmani Senior Secondary School for
seven years and the respondent/accused was the principal of the
school. It is alleged that on 20.08.2014 at about 08:20 AM, the
accused – Dharambir Singh called the complainant to his office, and
directed her to sit down. When the complainant objected to this, the
accused – Dharambir Singh held her hand. The complainant tried to
free herself, and in the course of this scuffle, she fell on the floor. It is
alleged that the complainant was six months pregnant at the time, and
narrowly escaped a miscarriage. At this point, the respondent hurled
abuses and uttered caste-specific remarks at her. The co-accused –
Gyan Singh was alleged to be present in the room, and aided the
accused – Dharambir Singh in committing the said acts.
6. Subsequently, other employees, namely Manoj Verma and
Neelam Yadav arrived at the spot, and upon finding the complainant
on the floor, moaning in pain, Manoj Verma advised to take her to the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SHIKHA SEHGAL
Signing Date:13.09.2024
20:05:58
CRL.REV.P. 790/2022 & CRL.REV.P. 724/2023 Page 2 of 20

hospital. The complainant was escorted to a nearby nursing home by
Neelam Yadav where she was treated. The complainant made the
complaint about the said incident on 28.08.2014. The FIR was
registered on 26.09.2014 under Section 354(A)(1) of the IPC.
7. During the investigation, statements under Section 161 of the
CrPC of the witnesses – Neelam Yadav and Manoj Verma were
recorded. In their statements, they stated that they did not hear the
respondent using casteist remarks against the complainant.
8. The complainant, thereafter, filed an application dated
10.10.2014 under Section 156(3) of the CrPC before the learned Trial
Court seeking directions to the concerned SHO to add Sections
354/509/312/511 of the IPC and Sections 3/4 of the SC/ST Act. The
said application was dismissed on 03.06.2015. However, the
complainant was given an opportunity to lead pre-summoning
evidence under Section 200 of the CrPC. In her statement, on
24.02.2016, the complainant as witness-1, stated that the accused –
Dharambir Singh held her hand, and tried to hug her. As she tried to
escape from his clutches, he continually touched her private parts. The
complainant raised an alarm for help, but the accused pushed, causing
her to fall. The accused then made caste-specific remarks at the
complainant. At this time, the co-accused – Gyan Singh assisted him.
She stated that upon hearing the complainant’s plea for help, the other
teacher, namely, Manoj Verma came to the principal’s office, followed
by Neelam Yadav. She further deposed that the accused – Dharambir
Singh, during the alleged incident, used caste-based remarks and said
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SHIKHA SEHGAL
Signing Date:13.09.2024
20:05:58
CRL.REV.P. 790/2022 & CRL.REV.P. 724/2023 Page 3 of 20

“tera jaise chure chamar mujhe roz milte hain, roz aate hain mere
paas to mein kya karon, tere par dil aa gaya hai, tu saali churi har
saal pet fula kar aa jaati hai aur mein kutch karun to bura lagta hai ”.
9. The statement of the complainant was recorded under Section
164 of the CrPC on 23.04.2016 before the learned MM, wherein she
supported her version during the pre-summoning evidence.
10. After conclusion of the investigation, charge sheet under
Section 354A of the IPC was filed on 27.04.2016.
11. The learned ASJ, by order dated 15.05.2019 clubbed the
complaint case being, CC No. 498/2018 and the case arising out of the
FIR No.413/2014 for the purpose of trial.
12. The Investigating Officer also recorded supplementary
statements under Section 161 of the CrPC of the witnesses, namely,
Manoj Verma, Neelan Yadav and Archana on 01.02.2019. In the said
statements, all the three corroborated the said supplementary statement
of the complainant.
13. After completion of further investigation, supplementary
charge sheet was filed on 07.03.2019 against the accused – Dharambir
Singh for offences under Section 354A (1) of the IPC and Section
3(1)(w)(i) of the SC/ST Act.
14. The learned ASJ, by the impugned order, discharged the
respondent for the offences punishable under the SC/ST Act. It was
held as under:
“19. Thus, the said subsequent contradictory and improbable
statements may give rise to suspicion but not to grave
suspicion. It would be unsafe to make the subsequent
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SHIKHA SEHGAL
Signing Date:13.09.2024
20:05:58
CRL.REV.P. 790/2022 & CRL.REV.P. 724/2023 Page 4 of 20

contradictory statements, the foundation for framing of the
charge. In view of the subsequent contradictory and
unbelievable statements of the complainant and the said
witnesses coupled with absence of independent and impartial
public persons at the time of alleged hurling of humiliating
words by the accused Dharambir Singh, the essential
ingredients of the offence punishable u/s. 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST
Act are not fulfilled in this case. Consequently, the accused
Dharambir is not liable to be charged for the offence u/s.
3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act and accordingly, he stands
discharged for the said offence.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
21. There is neither any averment nor any evidence on record
that the accused allegedly committed the offence of intention
outraging the modesty of the complainant only because of her
caste. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish one
of the essential ingredient for the offence u/s. 3(1)(xi) of the
SC/ST Act and therefore, the accused Dharambir Singh is
entitled to be discharged for the said offence. Accordingly
ordered.
22. In view of the findings in the preceding paragraphs, both
the accused persons have been discharged for the offences
punishable under Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.”
15. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the State and the prosecutrix
have preferred the present petitions seeking setting aside the impugned
order.
Submissions
16. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and the
learned counsel for the prosecutrix submitted that the impugned order
passed by the learned ASJ is perverse, palpably wrong, manifestly
erroneous and demonstrably unsustainable in the eyes of law.
17. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court disregarded the law
with regard to framing of charge under Section 227 of the CrPC. The
decision of this Court in Robin Sethi V/s State of NCT of Delhi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SHIKHA SEHGAL
Signing Date:13.09.2024
20:05:58
CRL.REV.P. 790/2022 & CRL.REV.P. 724/2023 Page 5 of 20

(DHC) Crl. : MC No. 3846/2013 was cited to contend that at the
stage of framing charges, the Court is required to judicially consider,
whether on consideration of material placed on record, it can be said
that accused has been reasonably connected with the offence charged
against him being involved in the offence. Even, if there exists a
ground for presuming the involvement of the accused in the
commission of the offence, charge is made out against him.
18. The decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Tamil Nadu
V/s N. Suresh Rajan and Ors. : (2014) SCC 709 was cited to assert
that the probative value of the materials produced by prosecution,
must be gone into at this stage and the Court is not expected to go
deep into the matter and hold that the material would not warrant
conviction. It was further contended that the correctness or otherwise
of the allegation in FIR has not to be seen by the Court.
19. It is submitted that the learned ASJ erred in not appreciating the
complaint dated 28.08.2014, pre-summoning evidence recorded on
24.02.2016 and supplementary statements recorded under section 161
of the CrPC dated 31.01.2019 of the complainant, wherein the
complainant categorically stated that accused Dharambir Singh passed
castiest remarks upon her. The supplementary statements under section
161 of the CrPC (all dated 01.02.2019) of public witnesses Manoj
Verma, Neelam Yadav and Archana Rana also clearly demonstrate that
accused Dharambir Singh passed castiest remarks to complainant in
their presence.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SHIKHA SEHGAL
Signing Date:13.09.2024
20:05:58
CRL.REV.P. 790/2022 & CRL.REV.P. 724/2023 Page 6 of 20

20. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate
the fact that even if the remark is made inside a building, and some
members of public are there then also it would be an offence since it is
in the public view. The learned counsel relied upon the judgment in
the case of Swaran Singh & Ors. V/s State Tr. Standing Council
&Anr. : (2008) 8 SCC 435 to support this contention.
21. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court has erroneously
adopted the prosecution case in bits & pieces and did not consider the
whole evidence on record against the respondent since his
involvement in the incident was beyond preponderance on probability.
22. The learned counsel for the respondent – Dharambir Singh, has
filed his counter-affidavit countering the petitioners’ arguments. The
learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the complainant has
improved her allegations pursuant to making the first complaint about
the alleged incident on 28.08.2014 which have led to contradictions in
her statements. He submitted that the supplementary statements of the
witnesses Manoj Verma and Neelam Yadav are also improved and in
contradiction to their previous statements recorded under Section 161
of the CrPC. He relied on Prashant Bhaskar v. State (Govt. of NCT
of Delhi) : 2014 (1) JCC 750 and Sunil Bansal v. State of Delhi :
2007 (2) JCC 1415 to contend that a charge cannot be framed if two
contradictory statements are present.
23. He submitted that neither the contents of the FIR No. 413/2014
nor the charge sheet discloses the precise content of abusive language
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SHIKHA SEHGAL
Signing Date:13.09.2024
20:05:58
CRL.REV.P. 790/2022 & CRL.REV.P. 724/2023 Page 7 of 20

employed by the respondent so as to attract the provisions of section
3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act.
24. He relied on the observation in Daya Bhatnagar & Ors. vs.
State : 109 (2004) DLT 915 , to further contend that the offence can be
termed under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act, if the same occurs in
“public view” i.e. in the hearing of persons who are not linked to the
complainant. He submitted that the alleged offence was committed
within the four walls of the respondent’s office, and the three public
witnesses are admittedly the colleagues of the complainant, hence they
cannot be considered as independent witnesses. He further submitted
that the complainant’s statements prior to the supplementary statement
recorded on 31.01.2019 are silent about the presence of the three
witnesses at the time of uttering the caste-specific aspersions.
Analysis
25. Since the petitioner has assailed the impugned order whereby
the learned ASJ discharged the respondents for the offence under the
SC/ST Act, it will be apposite to succinctly discuss the law with
respect to framing of charge and discharge under Sections 227 and 228
of the CrPC respectively. The statutory provisions are set out below:
“ 227. Discharge
If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the
documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the
submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf,
the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused
and record his reasons for so doing.
228. Framing of Charge
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SHIKHA SEHGAL
Signing Date:13.09.2024
20:05:58
CRL.REV.P. 790/2022 & CRL.REV.P. 724/2023 Page 8 of 20

(1) If, after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid, the
Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the
accused has committed an offence which—
(a) is not exclusively triable by the Court of Session, he may,
frame a charge against the accused and, by order, transfer
the case for trial to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, or any
other Judicial Magistrate of the first class and direct the
accused to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, or, as
the case may be, the Judicial Magistrate of the first class, on
such date as he deems fit, and thereupon such Magistrate
shall try the offence in accordance with the procedure for the
trial of warrant-cases instituted on a police report;
(b) is exclusively triable by the Court, he shall frame in
writing a charge against the accused.
(2) Where the Judge frames any charge under clause (b) of sub-
section (1), the charge shall be read and explained to the
accused and the accused shall be asked whether he pleads
guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried.”
26. Before delving into the facts of the present case, it is important
to note that it is a settled law that the scope of interference by High
Courts while exercising revisional jurisdiction against order on charge
is limited and ought to be exercised sparingly, in the interest of justice,
so as to not impede the trial unnecessarily. In the case of Amit Kapoor
v. Ramesh Chander : (2012) 9 SCC 460 , the Hon’ble Apex Court,
adverting to a catena of precedents, noted that the test for quashing of
charge in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction is whether the
allegations, as made from the record of the case, taken at their highest,
constitute the offence or not.
27. It is also trite law that the trial court, at the stage of framing of
charges, is not required to conduct a mini-trial and has to merely
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SHIKHA SEHGAL
Signing Date:13.09.2024
20:05:58
CRL.REV.P. 790/2022 & CRL.REV.P. 724/2023 Page 9 of 20

weigh the material on record to ascertain whether the ingredients
constituting the alleged offence are prima facie made out against the
accused persons. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Sajjan
Kumar v. CBI : (2010) 9 SCC 368 , has culled out the following
principles in regard to the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of the CrPC:
“ 21. On consideration of the authorities about the scope of
Sections 227 and 228 of the Code, the following principles
emerge:
(i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the
charges under Section 227 CrPC has the undoubted power to sift
and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out
whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been
made out. The test to determine prima facie case would depend
upon the facts of each case.
(ii) Where the materials placed before the court disclose grave
suspicion against the accused which has not been properly
explained, the court will be fully justified in framing a charge and
proceeding with the trial.
(iii) The court cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece
of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of
the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents
produced before the court, any basic infirmities, etc. However, at
this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons
of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a
trial.
(iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the court could form
an opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can
frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required
to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has
committed the offence.
(v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of
the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a
charge the court must apply its judicial mind on the material
placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of
offence by the accused was possible.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SHIKHA SEHGAL
Signing Date:13.09.2024
20:05:58
CRL.REV.P. 790/2022 & CRL.REV.P. 724/2023 Page 10 of 20

(vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the court is required to
evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to
find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value
disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the
alleged offence. For this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it
cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the
prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common
sense or the broad probabilities of the case.
(vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to
suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial
Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this
stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or
acquittal. ”
(emphasis supplied)
28. In a recent decision in State of Gujarat v. Dilipsinh
Kishorsinh Rao : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1294 , the Hon’ble Apex
Court has discussed the parameters that would be appropriate to keep
in mind at the stage of framing of charge/discharge, as under :
“7. It is trite law that application of judicial mind being
necessary to determine whether a case has been made out by
the prosecution for proceeding with trial and it would not be
necessary to dwell into the pros and cons of the matter by
examining the defence of the accused when an application for
discharge is filed. At that stage, the trial judge has to merely
examine the evidence placed by the prosecution in order to
determine whether or not the grounds are sufficient to proceed
against the accused on basis of charge sheet material. The
nature of the evidence recorded or collected by the
investigating agency or the documents produced in which
prima facie it reveals that there are suspicious circumstances
against the accused, so as to frame a charge would suffice and
such material would be taken into account for the purposes of
framing the charge. If there is no sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused necessarily, the accused
would be discharged, but if the court is of the opinion, after
such consideration of the material there are grounds for
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SHIKHA SEHGAL
Signing Date:13.09.2024
20:05:58
CRL.REV.P. 790/2022 & CRL.REV.P. 724/2023 Page 11 of 20

presuming that accused has committed the offence which is
triable, then necessarily charge has to be framed.
xxx xxx xxx
12. The primary consideration at the stage of framing of
charge is the test of existence of a prima-facie case, and at
this stage, the probative value of materials on record need not
be gone into. This Court by referring to its earlier decisions in
the State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa, (1996) 4 SCC
659 and the State of MP v. Mohan Lal Soni, (2000) 6 SCC 338
has held the nature of evaluation to be made by the court at
the stage of framing of the charge is to test the existence of
prima-facie case. It is also held at the stage of framing of
charge, the court has to form a presumptive opinion to the
existence of factual ingredients constituting the offence
alleged and it is not expected to go deep into probative value
of the material on record and to check whether the material on
record would certainly lead to conviction at the conclusion of
trial.”
29. In view of the above, it is clear that this Court, at this stage, is
not required to evaluate the evidence or hold a mini-trial as the same
would be tantamount to this Court assuming appellate jurisdiction.
Thus, all that must be seen is whether the learned Trial Court has
adequately appreciated the material on record and whether on the
material placed before it, the Court could form an opinion that there is
grave suspicion against the accused.
30. The SC/ST Act is a special legislation passed to check and deter
crimes against scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. The legislative
intent to implement a specialised law has been to curb the incidents of
indignities, humiliation and harassment meted out to the members of
these communities.
31. The impugned order passed by the learned ASJ is rooted in a
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SHIKHA SEHGAL
Signing Date:13.09.2024
20:05:58
CRL.REV.P. 790/2022 & CRL.REV.P. 724/2023 Page 12 of 20

meticulous examination of the prima facie evidence, for the following
reasons:
31.1 Discrepancies in the Statements of the Complainant
31.1.1 The cornerstone of the prosecution’s case is the testimony
of the complainant, which has undergone significant alterations and
improvements over time. Initially, the complainant’s allegations in the
complaint dated 28.08.2014 were limited to accusations under Section
354A of the IPC. It was only during the pre-summoning evidence on
24.02.2016, and in her supplementary statement dated 31.01.2019
recorded much later under Section 161 of the CrPC before the police,
that the complainant introduced the allegation of caste-specific
remarks by the accused. This material improvement in the
complainant’s statements, particularly the delay in introducing such
crucial allegations, severely undermines the credibility of her
testimony.
31.1.2 A coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Prashant
Bhaskar vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) : 2009: DHC: 4012 ,
relying upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the
case of Dilawar Balu Kurane v. State of Maharashtra : (2002) 2 SCC
135 , held that where there exist two contradictory statements in the
record, a charge cannot be framed on such conflicting evidence. The
Court observed that it is unsafe to rely on subsequent statements that
contradict earlier ones without cogent reasons. The Court further held
that when faced with two contradictory versions, it would be justified
in preferring the version that supports the discharge of the accused,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SHIKHA SEHGAL
Signing Date:13.09.2024
20:05:58
CRL.REV.P. 790/2022 & CRL.REV.P. 724/2023 Page 13 of 20

especially when the subsequent statements appear to be an
afterthought or are otherwise unreliable.
31.2 Delay in filing the complaint and subsequent lodging of the
FIR
31.2.1 The timeline of events also raises substantial concerns
regarding the veracity of the allegations. The alleged incident took
place on 20.08.2014, but the complaint was made by the complainant
on 28.08.2014. Thereafter, FIR was registered almost a month later, on
26.09.2014. The complainant’s initial complaint did not include any
mention of caste-based insults or the presence of three persons/alleged
public witnesses during the alleged incident, the same were only
introduced much later in her supplementary statement recorded on
24.02.2016 that is, after an inordinate delay of more than a year. The
unexplained delay in lodging the FIR No. 413/2014 by the
complainant and the subsequent embellishment of allegations severely
impairs the prosecution’s case.
31.2.2 It is well-established that the FIR in a criminal case
serves as a crucial piece of evidence for corroborating the oral
testimony presented during the trial. The primary purpose of requiring
the prompt filing of an FIR is to secure early information about the
circumstances of the crime, the identities of the perpetrators, the roles
they played, and the names of any eyewitnesses present at the scene. It
is also a settled legal principle that the initiation of a criminal
investigation is not contingent upon the receipt and recording of the
FIR by the police. Although the FIR under Section 154 of the CrPC is
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SHIKHA SEHGAL
Signing Date:13.09.2024
20:05:58
CRL.REV.P. 790/2022 & CRL.REV.P. 724/2023 Page 14 of 20

not considered substantive evidence, it holds significant value when
recorded promptly, before there is an opportunity for embellishment or
fading of memory. Consequently, undue, or unreasonable delay in
filing the FIR can raise suspicions, prompting the Court to examine
the reasons for the delay and assess its impact on the reliability of the
prosecution’s version. [Ref : Sekaran v. State of T.N. : (2024) 2 SCC
176 ]
31.3 Inconsistencies in the Statements of Public Witnesses
31.3.1 The testimonies of the public witnesses, namely Manoj
Verma and Neelam Yadav, who were allegedly present at the time of
the alleged incident, also suffer from material inconsistencies. These
witnesses initially during the recording of the statements on
30.10.2014 and 01.01.2015 under Section 161 of the CrPC, denied
having heard any caste-specific remarks by the respondent against the
complainant. It was only in their supplementary statements, recorded
much later, i.e. on 01.02.2019 during the investigation that these
witnesses introduced the allegation of casteist abuse. Such belated
improvements in witness testimonies are inherently suspicious and
diminish the reliability of their statements.
31.3.2 It is suffice to point out that discrepancies and
contradictions in witnesses’ statements under Section 161 of the CrPC,
especially those made at different stages of the investigation, can be
grounds for questioning the credibility of the witnesses and,
consequently, prima facie , case of the prosecution. When the
witnesses’ statements are riddled with inconsistencies, the Court is not
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SHIKHA SEHGAL
Signing Date:13.09.2024
20:05:58
CRL.REV.P. 790/2022 & CRL.REV.P. 724/2023 Page 15 of 20

obligated to frame charges merely on the basis of such unreliable
evidence. This Court in the case of Deepa Bajwa v. State : 115 (2004)
DLT 202 held that for ascertaining that a complaint on the basis of
which the complainant seeks registration of FIR, must disclose
essential ingredients of the offence and in case a complaint lacks or is
wanting in any of the essential ingredients, the lacuna or deficiency
cannot be filled up by obtaining additional complaint or
supplementary statement and thereafter proceed to register the FIR.
The relevant portion of the judgment is as under :
“After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel
for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that a
complaint, on the basis of which the complainant seeks registration
of an FIR, must disclose essential ingredients of the offence and in
case a complaint lacks or is wanting in any of the essential
ingredients, the lacuna or deficiency cannot be filled up by
obtaining additional complaint or supplementary statement and
thereafter proceed to register the FIR. If such a course is
permitted, it would give undue latitude as well as opportunity to
unscrupulous complainants to nail others by hook or by crook in
spite of the fact that their initial complaint does not make out the
offence complained of. Such a course would be utter abuse of the
process of law. First version as disclosed in a complaint is always
important for adjudicating as to whether an accused has
committed or not an offence. In the complaint dated 19th April,
2001, the Complainant himself alleged that the Councillor
Chhannu Mal was introducing him to the petitioner. If that was the
case, how could he say later that on that day the petitioner knew
that he was a Scheduled Caste. This statement, therefore, was a
crude falsity introduced at the behest of the police to implicate the
petitioner under Section 3 of the Act. This effort on the part of the
police to supply the deficiency and cover up a lacuna in the
complaint in view of legal opinion was totally unwarranted and an
abuse of the process of law.”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SHIKHA SEHGAL
Signing Date:13.09.2024
20:05:58
CRL.REV.P. 790/2022 & CRL.REV.P. 724/2023 Page 16 of 20

31.4 Application of the SC/ST Act
31.4.1 The prosecution’s attempt to invoke the provisions of the
SC/ST Act appears to be an afterthought. The SC/ST Act is a special
statute aimed at protecting members of Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes from atrocities and discrimination. For an offence
under this Act to be made out, it must be established that the alleged
insult or intimidation was on account of the victim’s caste. The
prosecution has failed to demonstrate that the accused’s alleged
actions were motivated by the complainant’s caste or that the casteist
remarks were made with the intent to humiliate her specifically
because of her caste. It will be relevant to reproduce the erstwhile
Section 3 of the SC/ST Act, prior to its amendment notified vide S.O.
152(E) dated 18th January, 2016 [Section 3(1)(x) and Section 3(1)(xi)
of the pre-amended SC/ST Act] for the sake of convenience :
“3. Punishments for offences of atrocities . — (1) Whoever, not
being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, —
*
(x) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a
member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any
place within public view;
(xi) assaults or uses force to any woman belonging to s
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe with intent to dishonour
or outrage her modesty.”
31.4.2 In order to attract the aforesaid provisions of the SC/ST
Act, following are the essential ingredients:
Section 3(1)(x)
i. Intentionally insults or intimidates.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SHIKHA SEHGAL
Signing Date:13.09.2024
20:05:58
CRL.REV.P. 790/2022 & CRL.REV.P. 724/2023 Page 17 of 20

ii. With intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe.
iii. In a place within public view.
Section 3(1)(xi)
i. Assaults or uses force to any woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste
or a Scheduled Tribe.
ii. Intent to dishonour or outrage her modesty
31.4.3 It is trite that merely because the victim belongs to a
scheduled caste does not automatically bring the case within the
purview of the SC/ST Act. There must be clear and convincing
evidence that the offence was committed on the ground of the victim’s
caste. The absence of such evidence in the present case renders the
application of the SC/ST Act untenable.
31.4.4 Furthermore, the alleged casteist remarks were allegedly
made within the confines of the accused’s office, in the presence of
colleagues who are not independent public witnesses. The Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of Hitesh Verma vs. State of Uttarakhand :
AIR 2020 SC 5584 , held that for an offence under the SC/ST Act to
be established, the casteist remarks must be made “within public
view”. If the remarks are made in a private setting, without
independent public witnesses, the essential ingredients of the offence
are not fulfilled. It is desirable that before an accused is subjected to a
trial for alleged commission of offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the
SC/ST Act, the utterances made by him in any place within public
view are outlined, if not in the FIR (which is not required to be an
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SHIKHA SEHGAL
Signing Date:13.09.2024
20:05:58
CRL.REV.P. 790/2022 & CRL.REV.P. 724/2023 Page 18 of 20

encyclopedia of all facts and events), but at least in the charge sheet
(which is prepared based either on statements of witnesses recorded in
course of investigation or otherwise) so as to enable the court to
ascertain whether the charge sheet makes out a case of an offence
under the SC/ST Act.
31.4.5 Even otherwise, the statement of the complainant regarding
the presence of the public witnesses suffers from infirmity and does
not raise grave suspicion. The public witnesses, in their statements
recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC on 30.10.2014 and
01.01.2015 had categorically denied having heard the respondent hurl
any casteist remarks at the complainant. However, in the
supplementary statements recorded on 01.02.2019, the witnesses
stated totally contradictory statements alleging that they had heard
humiliating and derogatory castiest remarks hurled by the respondent
at the complainant.
32. The prosecution’s case against the respondent rested primarily
on the supplementary statements of the complainant and other
witnesses, which were recorded after a delay of more than a year after
the alleged incident and introduced his involvement at a much later
stage. These statements were inconsistent and appeared to be an
afterthought, raising significant doubts about their credibility.
33. In light of the above-discussed facts and legal principles, this
Court finds that the learned ASJ correctly concluded that prima facie
the evidence on record does not warrant the framing of charges under
the SC/ST Act. The discrepancies in the complainant's statements, the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SHIKHA SEHGAL
Signing Date:13.09.2024
20:05:58
CRL.REV.P. 790/2022 & CRL.REV.P. 724/2023 Page 19 of 20

unexplained delay in lodging the complaint, the contradictions in the
witnesses’ testimonies, and the lack of evidence demonstrating the
accused’s intent to humiliate the complainant on the basis of her caste,
all contribute to a conclusion that the prosecution’s case lacks the
necessary substance to proceed to trial under the SC/ST Act.
34. This Court relies upon the principle laid down in Amit Kapoor
v. Ramesh Chander ( supra ), where the Hon’ble Apex Court
emphasized that the test for framing charges is whether the material on
record, taken at its face value, discloses the commission of an offence.
If the material only gives rise to suspicion and not grave suspicion, the
Court is justified in discharging the accused.
35. In view of the foregoing, the impugned order dated 08.09.2022,
discharging the accused Dharambir Singh for offences under the
SC/ST Act, is upheld. Consequently, the present petitions challenging
the discharge for the offences under the SC/ST Act lack merit and are,
therefore, dismissed. Pending application(s) also stand disposed of.
36. The matter shall proceed before the competent court on the
remaining charges as ordered by the learned ASJ.
37. A copy of this judgment be placed in both the matters.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
SEPTEMBER 9, 2024
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SHIKHA SEHGAL
Signing Date:13.09.2024
20:05:58
CRL.REV.P. 790/2022 & CRL.REV.P. 724/2023 Page 20 of 20