Prima facie witness statements and recoveries linking an accused to conspiracy and evidence destruction warrant trial, not quashing.

The petitioner, A4, sought to quash the charge sheet in S.C. No. 120 of 2025, which charged him under Sections 103(1) read with 61(2)(a), 238(a) and 249(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The prosecution alleged that he opposed the deceased’s relationship with A1’s sister, warned the deceased in January 2025, and, after A1 committed the murder on 27 July 2025, provided assistance at his quarry, where the victim’s clothes were burnt, a vehicle number plate was removed and a mobile phone was damaged.

Witness statements and recoveries from the quarry were relied upon to attribute instructions and assistance to the petitioner.

The petitioner disputed prior knowledge, conspiracy, destruction of evidence, harbouring and the SC/ST Act allegations.

Whether the charge-sheet material disclosed a prima facie case of conspiracy, destruction or concealment of evidence, or harbouring sufficient to proceed against the petitioner

Whether the allegations concerning the petitioner’s meeting and communications with the deceased, and his alleged participation in the underlying offence, justified proceeding under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), provides the jurisdiction invoked to seek quashing of criminal proceedings.

The charges were framed under Sections 103(1), 61(2)(a), 238(a) and 249(a) of the BNS, and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

The Court treated the evidentiary value of the seized DVR and the admissibility and proof of CCTV material under Sections 61 and 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, as matters for trial.

It also referred to Rahil and another v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1481, for the principle that call-detail records indicate communication and approximate location, but not the content of a conversation.

The Court distinguished the petitioner’s case from those of A2 and A3: the allegations against him were supported not merely by call records or inference, but by statements of witnesses LW41 to LW45 concerning instructions at the quarry and by recoveries made there.

The alleged January meeting and calls were treated as corroborative circumstances; whether they occurred and what they conveyed were matters for trial.

The Court declined to assess the competing witness accounts or the evidentiary value of the DVR at the quash stage.

It further held that whether the alleged warning occurred in public view and amounted to intentional insult or intimidation on caste grounds required evidence; the prima facie material concerning conspiracy also meant the foundational basis for invoking Section 3(2)(v) could not then be said to be absent.

It dismissed the quash petition and closed the connected miscellaneous petition, directing the trial court to decide the case on its merits, uninfluenced by the High Court’s observations.