This appeal arises out of a judgment and order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore whereby the High Court dismissed the accused’s appeal arising out of proceedings before the trial court under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Charges were framed under the IPC and the SCST Act. The sole point of challenge was the subsistence of charges under Section 3(1)(r) 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SCST Act against the accused.

A 2-Judges Bench of the Supreme Court held –

“10. …For a charge under the above quoted provisions of the SCST Act to be established, several elements must be present. The accused must first commit an offence under the IPC, such as assault, robbery, or any other crime punishable with ten or more years of imprisonment. The act must be directed against a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, or against property that belongs to them, reflecting the special protection the law affords to historically marginalized communities. In addition, the accused must have knowledge that the victim belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or that the property belongs to such a person. This requirement of awareness is essential to the application of the law. Finally, the punishment prescribed under this sub-section is life imprisonment along with a fine, underscoring the gravity of offences committed against vulnerable communities.”

Referring to the statutory text of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the Bench held – “the position is one of continuity rather than change in relation to the Court’s power at the stages of discharge and framing of charge. In both enactments, the governing standards are framed in materially the same language. At the stage of discharge, the Court is required to consider whether there is any sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused in sessions cases, or whether the charge is groundless in Magistrate warrant cases. At the subsequent stage, charges are to be framed only if the Court forms an opinion that there is a ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence.”.

The Supreme Court further observed that when the trial court had itself acknowledged that none of the statements u/s.161 CrPC stated the specific slurs were uttered by the accused with intent to insult, threaten or kill, then it could not be found on the same bundle of evidence and scrutiny that the alleged acts of the accused were informed by caste awareness.

The Supreme Court held that “An appeal under Section 14-A of the SCST Act is a statutory first appeal” and further held –

“19. …While the High Court is duty bound, as a first appellate Court, to independently apply its mind and correct errors committed by the Special Court, it must remain conscious of the stage of the proceedings and the corresponding limits of judicial scrutiny. This calibrated approach ensures that the protective object of the SC/ST Act is preserved, while simultaneously safeguarding against mechanical application of its provisions in cases where the statutory ingredients are not even prima facie disclosed.”

The appeal was allowed to the limited extent that charges under the SCST Act were quashed.