Allahabad High Court
Ravi And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 9 March, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:47351
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 9595 of 2024
Ravi And 4 Others
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
Rajesh Kumar Kanojia, Swetashwa Agarwal
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
G.A., Rajiv Kumar Mishra, Shyam Chandra Pandey
Court No. - 51
HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.
1. Heard Shri Rajesh Kumar Kanojia, learned counsel for the appellants, Shri Rajiv Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and Shri Amrit Raj, learned AGA for the State.
2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) of The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred by the appellants with a prayer to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 28.02.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Bulandshahar in Special Sessions Case No.3210/ 2023 (State vs. Ravi & Others), arising out of Case Crime No.105/ 2023, under Sections- 147, 148, 308/149, 323/149, 325/ 149, 352/149 IPC & Section 3 (2) (Va) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Kakod, District-Bulandshahar, whereby charges have been framed against the appellants, under Sections 147, 148, 308/149, 323/149, 325/ 149, 352/ 149 IPC & Section 3 (2) (va) SC/ST Act, by the concerned court.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the allegations in the first information report do not constitute any offence against the appellants under Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act. He submitted that there is no allegation either in the first information report or in the statement of witnesses recorded during investigation that any any casteist slurs were used by the appellants during altercation. The allegation in the FIR itself is evident to establish that quarrel between the parties occurred after some dispute arose between the children from two sides on 24.5.2023. The said allegation suggests that whatever incident occurred, was actually occurred due to certain dispute between the children of the two parties. Quarreling by two parties over a trifle matter will not suggest that one of the parties committed offence against a victim on account of his being a member of SC/ST community. He further submitted that unless it could be shown that the alleged offence was committed by the appellants against the victim on account of his being a member of SC/ST community, no offence under Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act is made out. Hence, the order of framing charges against the present appellants is illegal and is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of his submissions, has relied upon the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of Shashikant Sharma & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Anr., (2024) 13 SCC 446 and Khuman Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2020) 18 SCC 763.
4. Learned AGA and the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 have submitted that allegation in the FIR itself reflects that informant and his family members were severally assaulted by the appellants. It has also been mentioned that they abused during the altercation. The injury report also suggests that parties have sustained serious injuries due to which charge-sheet under Section 308 IPC has also been submitted against the appellants. There is no denial of the fact that both parties belong to the same locality and both are aware of each other identities. Hence, the arguments raised on behalf of the appellants is bereft of any merit and this criminal appeal is liable to be dismissed.
5. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record including the case diary.
6. It is true that there is no allegation of using casteist slurs against the appellants either in the first information report or in the statements of informant and other witnesses. However, it is trite that offence under Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act automatically attracts whenever an accused commits offence against a victim being fully aware that victim belongs to SC/ST community. Said proposition has been established by Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment in the case of Patan Jamal Vali vs. State of A.P., (2021) 16 SCC 225. It was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that amendment Act of 2015 has reduced the threshold of proving the crime on the basis of caste identity and now mere knowledge of the caste of victim was sufficient to sustain the conviction. In the said judgment, Section 8(c) of SC/ST was also considered and discussed by Hon’ble Supreme Court and it held that the said Section clearly indicates the acquaintance of the accused with the family of the victim is enough to presume that the accused was aware of the caste and identity of the victim, unless proved otherwise.
7. Relying upon the judgment in Patan Jamal Vali (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court in another judgment of Shivkumar @ Baleshwar Yadav vs. The State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1006 held that prior familiarity with the family of the victim and knowledge of their caste is sufficient to satisfy the requirement under Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act. It is apparent that language of Section 3(2)(v) and Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act are identical. Therefore, it is no less res integra that if accused is aware of identity of victim and he commits offence against him, then the offence under Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act will automatically attract towards him even if no casteist slurs have been used if the offence committed by the accused comes within the list of offence specified in the Schedule of the SC/ ST Act.
8. In view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned order of framing charges against the appellants does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference.
9. This criminal appeal lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Anil Kumar-X,J.)
March 9, 2026
SK
Â
Â
