Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2025:CGHC:47830 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 840 of 2023 Naveen Patel S/o Shobha Ram Patel Aged About 21 Years Occupation Agriculture Labour, R/o Dhangaon, Police Station And Tahsil Pusour, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station City Kotwali, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 2 - Xyz D/o Abc Aged About 22 Years R/o QPR (Cause title taken from Case Information System) ---- Respondent(s) For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
forthcoming to prima facie establish the offence under Section 3(2) 4 (v) of the Act against the appellant. It is further submitted that insofar as the charge under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC is concerned, the victim is a married woman having a child, and the material on record indicates that the relationship between the appellant and the victim was consensual in nature. Therefore, the essential ingredients of the alleged offence are not satisfied. Moreover, the FSL report in the present case is negative. In view of the above circumstances, learned counsel prays that the order framing charge deserves to be quashed. 7. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for quashing of the impugned order and submits that since charges have already been framed against the appellant, and it is an admitted fact that the victim belongs to the Scheduled Caste community, the matter necessarily requires trial. She further submits that during the course of trial, if evidence is not forthcoming in support of a particular charge, the same may be altered or modified under Section 216 of the Cr.P.C., even before delivery of the judgment. So far as the offence under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC is concerned, it is submitted that although the victim is a married woman and has a child, she had been deserted by her first husband. Thereafter, she came into contact with the appellant, who assured her that he would keep her along with her child and also marry her. On the strength of such promise, he repeatedly subjected her to sexual intercourse, but subsequently refused to marry her, which led to strained relations between them. Consequently, the FIR came to be lodged against the appellant. 5 8. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the order of the trial Court as well document appended thereto with utmost circumspection. It is trite law that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court is not required to conduct a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter or weigh the evidence as if conducting a full-fledged trial. The Court has only to see whether a prima facie case exists on the basis of material available on record. 10. The allegation in the present case is that the appellant, on the pretext of marriage, established physical relationship with the victim on several occasions and thereafter refused to marry her. The victim has categorically stated that on the faith of the appellant’s promise, she consented to such relations. Such consent, if obtained by deception or false promise of marriage, cannot be said to be a free consent in the eyes of law. Hence, prima facie ingredients of Section 376(2)(n) IPC are disclosed. 11. So far as Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is concerned, the legal position is well settled that for attracting this provision, it must be shown that the offence was committed “on the ground that the victim belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe”. Mere proof of the victim’s caste is not sufÏcient. However, whether the appellant was aware of the caste of the victim, and whether the offence was committed on that account, are matters which cannot be conclusively decided without evidence. At the stage of framing charge, if there is some material indicating the 6 victim’s caste status and the relationship between the parties, it would not be proper to record a finding of absence of ingredients. 12. The contention that the relationship was consensual and that the victim was a married woman with a child, are matters of defence which the appellant may establish during trial. Similarly, the argument based on FSL report being negative is not conclusive at this stage, since absence of forensic evidence is not fatal to prosecution if ocular evidence is forthcoming. 13. In light of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the materials collected during investigation disclose a prima facie case under Section 376(2)(n) IPC. Invocation of Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act, though contestable, cannot be said to be wholly without foundation at this stage. The question whether the offence was committed “on the ground of caste” is a matter to be determined at the stage of trial. The order dated 10.03.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge does not suffer from any illegality, impropriety or perversity warranting interference by this Court. 14. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of substance is hereby dismissed. 15. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Kunal Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice
Arguments
: Mr. Amit Soni, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate. For Respondent No.1/State : Ms. Saumya Sharma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 17.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. Amit Soni, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. Saumya Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the respondent No.1/State. 2. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that notice was duly 2 served upon the victim to appear before a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and to raise her objection, if any. On 15.06.2023, the victim/complainant appeared before a Co-ordinate Bench and stated that she has no objection to the appeal filed by the appellant. She further submitted that she is not interested in engaging any counsel to argue on her behalf, nor does she wish to avail free legal assistance from the Legal Aid Committee. 3. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 10.03.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act), Raigarh, District–Raigarh (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case (Atrocities) No. 12/2022, whereby charges have been framed against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The appellant has approached this Court seeking quashment of the said order on the ground that the charges so framed are unsustainable in law and that the provisions of the Atrocities Act have been wrongly invoked against him. 4. Brief facts of the case, as projected by the prosecution, are that in the year 2019 the appellant allegedly established physical relations with the victim on several occasions on the pretext of marriage and thereafter refused to marry her. On the basis of the said allegations, an FIR was lodged against the appellant. During investigation, and at the stage of filing of charge-sheet, an additional charge under 3 Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was incorporated. Upon completion of investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act. 5. After submission of the charge-sheet, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and committed the case to the Court of Special Judge, Atrocities. The learned Special Judge, Atrocities, after hearing both the parties, passed the order dated 10.03.2023, whereby framed charges against the appellant under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act. The appellant has preferred the present appeal challenging the said order of framing of charge on the ground that the charges have been illegally and erroneously framed, inasmuch as the essential ingredients to attract the provisions of the Atrocities Act are not made out against him. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the present appeal has been preferred against the order framing charge. It is contended that the FIR registered against the appellant was initially for the offence under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC. However, during the course of investigation, as the police found that the victim belongs to the Scheduled Caste community, an additional charge under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was incorporated. It is urged that from the perusal of the entire charge-sheet, no material is