Chambers of Ishaan Garg
Ch. No. 217, Western Wing, District & Sessions Court, Tis Hazari, New Delhi, Delhi 110054
+91 8851742417, +91 8800386163
The Supreme Court recently (on December 01) reiterated that if the necessary ingredients of an offence are not made out from the admitted evidence of the prosecution, then the Court is not obligated to frame a charge for such an offence against the accused.
"...there is also a long line of precedents that from the admitted evidence of the prosecution as reflected in the documents filed by the Investigating Officer in the report under Section 173 CrPC, if the necessary ingredients of an offence are not made out then the Court is not obligated to frame charge for such offence against the accused," the Court said. Reference was made to judgment rendered in the case of Suresh @ Pappu Bhudharmal Kalani Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2001 SC 1375.
The Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta made these observations while deciding an appeal against the order of the Allahabad High Court. In its impugned order, the High Court affirmed the trial court’s order to reject the discharge application moved by the accused persons/ appellants. Pertinently, charges framed against the accused were under several provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, including Section 307 (Attempt to Murder). Apart from this, the accused were also booked under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
years of imprisonment, was committed by an accused of upper caste upon a person belonging to the SC community with the knowledge that such person belonged to the said community.
The Court also took note of the medical report and observed that among charges farmed under IPC, the only offence which is punishable with 10 years of imprisonment or more in Section 307. However, the same was invoked on the basis of the gunshot, which admittedly did not result in any corresponding injury.
“Be that as it may, as per the highest case of the prosecution, the only offence under IPC punishable with imprisonment of 10 years or more being the offence under Section 307 IPC has been applied on the basis of the gun shot allegedly fired by the accused Vinod Upadhyay upon Rinku Thakur, which admittedly did not result into any corresponding injury.”
In view of the same, the Court concluded that from the admitted allegations of prosecution, the prima facie ingredients of the concerned offence are not made out. Thus, the Court held that the charge framed under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act is groundless.
However, the Court while setting aside the impugned order to this limited extent made it clear that the trail with respect to other offences shall continue.
Senior Advocate R Basant represented the appellant. AAG Sharan Dev Singh Thakur represented the State of UP.
Case Title: SHASHIKANT SHARMA vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 2023 SC
