Anil Kumar Sahu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

This criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 14-A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 assailing the order dated 26.11.2025 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), District Dindori in SCATR No.60/2025, whereby charges have been framed against the appellant for offences punishable under Section 78(1)(i), 296, 351(3), 332(c), 74, 75(1)(i) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 as well as under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

As per the prosecution case, the incident took place on 13.09.2025 at about 11:30 p.m. It is alleged that the appellant reached the house of the victim, entered the premises, assaulted and outraged her modesty, abused her and criminally intimidated her. Earlier the appellant was continuously stalked and abused her. Immediately thereafter, the victim approached Police Station Shahpura and lodged the FIR at about 00:30 hours on 14.09.2025. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed and the learned Trial Court, finding sufficient prima facie material against the appellant, framed charges by the impugned order dated 26.11.2025.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned Trial Court has framed charges mechanically without recording adequate reasons. It is contended that the order impugned is a non-speaking order and the mandatory provisions of the BNSS relating to supply of documents and hearing before framing of charge have not been complied with. It is further argued that the prosecution story suffers from inherent improbabilities and is a result of previous enmity existing between the appellant and the husband of the victim.

According to the appellant, the present FIR is merely a counterblast to the earlier disputes between the parties and, therefore, continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law. It is further contended that the essential ingredients of the offences under the SC/ST Act are absent as there is no material to establish intentional insult or humiliation on account of caste in a place within public view. It is also argued that no independent witness has supported the prosecution and that the investigation is vitiated as it was allegedly not conducted by a police officer competent to investigate offences under the SC/ST Act in terms of Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 and, therefore, the entire prosecution deserves to be quashed. In support of these submissions, reliance has been placed upon Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, (2020) 10 SCC 710; GorigePentaiah v. State of A.P., (2008) 12 SCC 531; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Babbu Rathore, (2020) 2 SCC 577and Rajesh Meena v. State of Rajasthan, 2017 RLW 604 (Raj.).

Per contra, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State has supported the impugned order and submitted that the learned Trial Court has committed no illegality in framing charges. It is argued that the FIR was lodged promptly within one hour of the occurrence, thereby substantially ruling out the possibility of deliberation or fabrication. The appellant has been specifically named in the FIR from the very inception. During investigation, the victim consistently supported the prosecution case and her version stands corroborated by other witnesses. It is submitted that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court is not expected to undertake a meticulous appreciation of evidence or evaluate the probable defence of the accused. The only question before the Court is whether the material collected during investigation raises a strong suspicion regarding the commission of the offences alleged. According to the State, the entire defence put forward by the appellant is matters requiring appreciation of evidence during trial and cannot constitute grounds for quashing the charges at the threshold. It is, therefore, prayed that the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

Heard counsel for parties and have carefully perused the record.

The scope of interference at the stage of framing of charge is well settled. At this stage, the Court is only required to ascertain whether the material collected during investigation, if accepted at its face value, discloses the commission of the alleged offences and raises a strong suspicion against the accused. The Court is not expected to undertake a meticulous appreciation of evidence or examine the probable defence of the accused as if conducting a mini trial.

The incident is alleged to have occurred on 13.09.2025 at about 11:30 p.m., whereas the FIR was lodged within one hour, at about 00:30 hours, specifically naming the appellant. During investigation, the statements of the victim as well as witnesses namely Lakshmi Bai, Prem Lal, Omti Bai, Shyam Lal, Ganni Tiwari and Mahent Das have supported the prosecution version. The prosecution has also placed on record the medical evidence and the caste certificate of the victim. Thus, sufficient prima facie material exists raising a strong suspicion regarding the involvement of the appellant, justifying the framing of charges.

Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the investigation is vitiated for non-compliance of Rule 7 of the Rules, 1995, as the investigation was not conducted by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. The submission does not merit acceptance. The State Government, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 9(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, vide Notification dated 07.10.2017, has conferred the powers of arrest, investigation and prosecution upon all Police Officers of the rank of Police Inspector within the State of Madhya Pradesh. Therefore, where the investigation has been conducted by a Police Inspector duly empowered under the aforesaid notification, the same cannot be held to be illegal merely on the ground urged by the appellant. Consequently, the objection regarding competence of the Investigating Officer is devoid of substance.

The plea of previous enmity, false implication, absence of independent witnesses and place of incident was not a public are essentially matters of defence which require recording of evidence and cannot be adjudicated at the stage of framing of charge. Apart from the above, even otherwise, any alleged procedural irregularity in the investigation, unless shown to have caused prejudice to the accused or resulted in failure of justice, would not ipso facto vitiate the prosecution, particularly when sufficient prima facie material is otherwise available on record Therefore, the learned Trial Court rightly found sufficient grounds for proceeding against the appellant.

The judgments relied upon by the appellant are distinguishable on facts. Hitesh Verma (supra) pertained to a property dispute where the allegations did not disclose intentional caste-based humiliation attracting the provisions of the SC/ST Act, whereas the present case is based on specific allegations supported by witness statements and other material collected during investigation. Gorige Pentaiah (supra), was a case where the complaint itself lacked the essential ingredients of the offence and the proceedings were sought to be quashed under Section 482 CrPC. In the present matter, the appeal challenges an order framing charge after investigation and filing of the charge-sheet supported by prima facie evidence. The reliance placed on State of M.P. v. Babbu and other decisions dealing with Rule 7 is misplaced in the facts of the present case. Those decisions were rendered in the context of the statutory framework then prevailing. In the present case, the State Government has already issued Notification dated 07.10.2017 under Section 9(1) of the Act authorising Police Inspectors to exercise the powers of arrest, investigation and prosecution. Therefore, the said judgments do not advance the appellant's case.

Accordingly, this Court finds that sufficient material exists to raise a suspicion against the appellant. The impugned order framing charges suffers from no illegality or perversity warranting interference under Section 14A(1) of the Act, 1989. Consequently, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed, leaving all questions of fact and defence to be adjudicated by the Trial Court on the basis of the evidence that may be adduced during trial. Any observation made in this order is only for the purpose of deciding the present appeal and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case, which shall be decided independently by the learned Trial Court.