Allahabad High Court
Case Details
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 11939 of 2024 Rajbali State of U.P. and Another Versus .....Appellant(s) .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Appellant(s) Counsel for Respondent(s) : Gaurav Kakkar, Raghvendra Prakash : G.A. Court No. - 86 HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J.
Legal Reasoning
mala fides and no prima facie case is made out to warrant trial. 6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. submitted that the order of the Special Judge is well reasoned and supported by material collected during investigation. Statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. corroborate the allegations made in the FIR, and prima facie indicate the appellant's responsibility in permitting hazardous cleaning work in violation of the Manual Scavengers Act. It was further submitted that the question of false implication is a matter for trial and not for discharge. 7. Upon careful perusal of the impugned order, it emerges that the learned Special Judge examined the FIR, statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and the post-mortem reports, and concluded that although no prima facie case was made out under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, there were sufficient materials to proceed under Section 304-A IPC, Section 3(1)(j) SC/ST Act, and Sections 7/9 of the Manual Scavengers Act. 8. The court below has relied upon the principle that at the stage of discharge or framing of charge, the Court is not required to conduct a meticulous evaluation of evidence or assess its probative strength. The limited inquiry is whether the material, if taken at face value, discloses the commission of the offence alleged. This principle has been consistently reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions. The Supreme Court has also clarified in Shashikant Sharma v. State of U.P. (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1545) that where the essential ingredients of a particular offence under the SC/ST Act are totally absent, the court may drop such charge even at the stage of framing. However, where the facts, taken at their face value, disclose any nexus to the offence, the accused cannot claim discharge by entering into the realm of appreciation of evidence. 9. In the present case, the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. prima facie indicate that the cleaning of the sewer tank was undertaken without adequate precaution or safety equipment and that the appellant, being the house owner, permitted such hazardous work, thereby attracting provisions of the Manual Scavengers Act and Section 304-A IPC. The ingredients of the offence under Section 3(1)(j) of the SC/ST Act, which prohibits compelling or permitting members of the Scheduled Castes to perform hazardous work, also appear to be prima facie satisfied. 10. The contention that the appellant was not present at the spot or that the work was undertaken voluntarily are matters of evidence, which can only be adjudicated at trial. At the stage of discharge, the Court is not expected to weigh the sufficiency of evidence or evaluate the reliability of the witnesses. The veracity of such defence contentions must await trial. 3 CRLA No. 11939 of 2024 11. The learned trial court, therefore, acted within the correct legal framework in rejecting the discharge application with respect to the above-mentioned offences while dropping the charge under Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act. The impugned order reflects due consideration of the material on record and adherence to judicial principles. 12. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, this Court finds no illegality, perversity, or procedural irregularity in the impugned order dated 03.10.2024. The learned Special Judge has applied correct legal principles and exercised jurisdiction properly. The impugned order warrants no interference in appellate jurisdiction. 13. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is dismissed. The order dated 03.10.2024 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Ghaziabad, is hereby affirmed. The trial court shall proceed with the trial expeditiously, in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations made herein, and shall make all endeavour to conclude the proceedings at the earliest. October 13, 2025 Krishna* (Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.) Digitally signed by :- Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR KRISHNA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Arguments
1. Heard Mr. Gaurav Kakkar, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the record. 2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short, "the SC/ST Act") has been preferred by the appellant challenging the judgment and order dated 03.10.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Ghaziabad in Special Sessions Trial No. 3108 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 562 of 2022, under Section 304-A IPC, Section 3(1)(j) SC/ST Act, and Sections 7/9 of the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013, Police Station Khoda, District Ghaziabad, whereby the learned court below rejected the discharge application of the appellant so far as the above offences were concerned, though the charge under Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act was dropped. 3. The prosecution case, as emerging from the FIR, is that on 16.10.2022, the deceased persons had been called by the appellant to clean the sewer tank at his house in New Janta Park, Ward No. 11, Khoda Colony. It is alleged that when they opened the lid of the tank, both fell unconscious due to noxious gases accumulated inside. The appellant, being the owner of the house, allegedly failed to render any assistance or arrange timely rescue, and both persons were declared dead at Lal Bahadur Shastri Hospital, Delhi. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. He is a 58-year-old Central Government employee working in the Technical Department of the India Government Mint, Noida, and had no connection with the alleged incident. It was urged that there is no material to establish that the appellant had engaged the deceased for manual scavenging or that he was present at the spot. The prosecution case, according to counsel, is based on conjectures, and the trial court failed to appreciate that essential ingredients of the alleged offences are lacking. 2 CRLA No. 11939 of 2024 5. It was further submitted that the trial court passed the impugned order mechanically and without due application of judicial mind. The investigation, it is said, is tainted by