Court dismisses appeal against the rejection of discharge application, citing sufficient prima facie evidence
In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has dismissed the criminal appeal filed by Chandra Prakash Singh, alias Goli Thakur, challenging the order of the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Hamirpur, which rejected his discharge application in a case involving allegations of casteist remarks. The case, arising from Case Crime No.77 of 2025, involves charges under Section 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, and Section 3(1)(Dha) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Justice Santosh Rai, presiding over the appeal, emphasized that at the stage of framing charges, the court's role is limited to evaluating whether a prima facie case exists against the accused, without delving into a detailed examination of the evidence. The court found that the materials on record, including Facebook posts and witness statements, provided sufficient grounds for a strong suspicion against Singh, warranting the continuation of the trial.
The appeal was built on contentions that the First Information Report (FIR) was lodged with an unexplained delay of seven days and lacked specific casteist words. However, the court observed that the delay and the absence of explicit words in the FIR did not negate the prima facie evidence gathered, which included objectionable social media posts allegedly targeting a particular community.
The judgment reflects the court's adherence to established legal principles regarding the framing of charges, as reiterated in several Supreme Court decisions. It underscores that strong suspicion, even if not amounting to proof of guilt, is sufficient to proceed with charges, and the court should not act merely as a conduit for the prosecution.
The dismissal of the appeal upholds the trial court's decision to frame charges and proceed with the trial, reinforcing the judiciary's commitment to addressing allegations of caste-based offenses with due diligence and legal scrutiny.
Bottom Line:
At the stage of framing charges, the court is required to evaluate the materials and documents on record to determine whether the facts, taken at their face value, disclose the existence of ingredients constituting the alleged offence. It is not required to conduct a mini-trial or weigh the evidence for conviction at this stage.
Statutory provision(s): Sections 227 and 228 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973; Section 3(1)(Dha) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; Section 66 of the Information Technology Act; Section 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Chandra Prakash Singh Alias Goli Thakur v. State of U.P., (Allahabad) : Law Finder Doc id # 2947294
