At charge-framing stage, defence claims and CCTV evidence cannot displace prima facie prosecution material.

The appellants challenged, under Section 14A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the order dated 06.08.2025 by which the Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Alirajpur, framed charges under Sections 296, 115(2) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v-a) of the SC/ST (POA) Act.

The complainant belonged to the Bhilala/Bhilda Scheduled Tribe, while the appellants did not belong to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.

According to the FIR, the appellants demanded repayment of grocery credit allegedly incurred by the complainant’s brother, abused the complainant by reference to his tribal identity, assaulted him with a stick, fists and kicks, and threatened him.

The appellants contended that the complainant was intoxicated, had initiated the quarrel, and that one appellant was not initially present; they also relied on CCTV footage allegedly showing the complainant as the aggressor.

The High Court noted that the medical examination recorded abrasions caused by a hard and blunt object within 24 hours and contained no indication that the complainant was intoxicated.

1. Whether the material collected during investigation disclosed sufficient ground or grave suspicion to sustain the charges framed against the appellants under the BNS and the SC/ST (POA) Act.

2. Whether the appellants’ reliance on CCTV footage and their version that the complainant was the aggressor justified discharge or interference with the order framing charges.

The Court applied the principles governing discharge and framing of charges under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, presently corresponding to Section 250 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Under P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala, (2010) 2 SCC 398, the court must judicially assess the record and determine whether sufficient ground exists to proceed; it is not a mere post office, though it must not conduct a full trial or weigh evidence finally.

Under Sajjan Kumar v. CBI, (2010) 9 SCC 368, the court may sift the material for the limited purpose of determining whether a prima facie case or grave suspicion exists, must consider the broad probabilities and basic infirmities, and may frame charges where the material, taken at face value, discloses the ingredients of the alleged offences; the probative value of the evidence is not to be conclusively determined at that stage.

The substantive charges arose under Sections 296, 115(2) and 351(2) of the BNS, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v-a) of the SC/ST (POA) Act.

The FIR and statements recorded during investigation alleged caste-based insults directed at the complainant because of his tribal identity, physical assault, and criminal intimidation. These allegations, together with the medical evidence showing recent abrasions caused by a hard and blunt object, disclosed sufficient prima facie material and grave suspicion to proceed with the prosecution.

The appellants’ assertions that the complainant was intoxicated, was the aggressor, and that CCTV footage contradicted the prosecution version were matters of defence requiring evidentiary evaluation at trial.

The Court held that such disputed material could not be used at the charge stage to conclusively determine credibility or the ultimate guilt of the accused.

Applying the limited-sifting standard under P. Vijayan and Sajjan Kumar, the Court found no basis to interfere with the Special Judge’s order.

The appellants’ defence based on the alleged intoxication of the complainant and CCTV footage could be examined only during trial and did not warrant discharge.

The criminal appeal was accordingly dismissed, and the judgment and record were directed to be remitted to the trial court for necessary compliance and information.