Supreme Court Affirms: Charges Must Align with Evidentiary Ingredients, Unfounded Claims Dismissed

In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court, on December 1, emphasized that framing charges against an accused is not mandatory if the essential elements of an offense are not evident from the admitted prosecution evidence. The Court, composed of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta, asserted this principle while adjudicating an appeal challenging the Allahabad High Court’s decision.

The impugned order upheld the trial court’s rejection of the discharge application by the accused individuals, who faced charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including Section 307 (Attempt to Murder), and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The case stemmed from an FIR accusing the appellants of intercepting and opening fire on a political campaigner and his son in 2017. The discharge plea did not contest the charges under the IPC, citing the need for extensive evidence evaluation. However, the appellants vehemently contended that the ingredients of Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act were not prima facie established.

Besides challenging the prosecution’s accuracy, the appellants asserted that the case was politically motivated. They also presented a medical report indicating the absence of gunshot injuries.

Upon scrutinizing Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, the Court reiterated the necessary elements for constituting the offense. The accused must not belong to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, the offense must be punishable under the IPC for ten years or more, and the victim must be a community member, with the accused having knowledge of this fact.

The Court found no allegation that an upper-caste accused committed an IPC offense against an SC community member with the requisite knowledge. Additionally, it observed that the only IPC offense punishable by ten years or more (Section 307) was invoked based on a gunshot that caused no corresponding injury.

Consequently, the Court concluded that the prima facie ingredients of the Section 3(2)(v) offense were absent from the admitted prosecution allegations. While declaring the charge groundless, the Court clarified that the trial for other offenses would proceed.

This significant decision unfolded in the case of Shashikant Sharma vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh (Diary No.- 16199 – 2023). Senior Advocate R Basant represented the appellant, while AAG Sharan Dev Singh Thakur represented the State of UP.