Court stresses that omission of caste allegations in initial FIR cannot negate application of SC/ST Act; directs charge under Section 3(1)(w) against accused with knowledge of victim's caste
In a significant judgment dated September 17, 2026, the Delhi High Court partially modified the order of the Trial Court in a heinous gang rape case involving a minor girl belonging to the Scheduled Caste (SC) community. The Court directed the framing of an additional charge under Section 3(1)(w) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ("SC/ST Act") against one of the accused, respondent no.2, while upholding the Trial Court's decision to discharge other charges and accused where no prima facie evidence was found.
The case stemmed from an FIR registered at Bhajanpura Police Station on March 31, 2016, wherein the prosecutrix, a minor schoolgirl, was allegedly kidnapped, forcibly made to consume intoxicants, gang-raped, and threatened by respondent no.2 and respondent no.3. The initial FIR and the affected party's statement under Section 164 CrPC did not mention any caste-based motivation or the victim's Scheduled Caste identity. However, following a complaint filed by the victim's father before the SC/ST Commission, supplementary charges under the SC/ST Act were invoked.
The Trial Court had framed charges under various IPC and POCSO Act provisions but declined to frame charges under Sections 328 IPC, 14(3) of the POCSO Act, and Sections 3(1)(e), (r), and (w) of the SC/ST Act. The Trial Court reasoned that the absence of caste allegations in the initial complaint and the victim's statements, as well as insufficient evidence, did not warrant framing charges under the SC/ST Act.
Aggrieved, the prosecutrix filed a petition under Sections 397, 401, and 482 CrPC before the Delhi High Court seeking amendment of the charge framing order to include the SC/ST Act provisions and others.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee, while hearing the petition, emphasized the legislative intent behind the SC/ST Act as a protective measure to prevent caste-based atrocities. The Court held that "mere non-mentioning of allegations pertaining to the offences under the SC/ST Act either in the initial complaint/FIR or in the statement under Section 164 CrPC and/or a mere delay of six months cannot be treated as sufficient reason(s) to discard the applicability of the provisions of the SC/ST Act."
The Court noted the victim's traumatic state as a minor subjected to gang rape and observed that delays or improvements in allegations are understandable and should be given due weight rather than being dismissed as afterthoughts.
Importantly, the Court distinguished between the offences under different clauses of Section 3(1) of the SC/ST Act. While Sections 3(1)(e) and 3(1)(r) require the act to be committed solely on account of the victim's caste, Section 3(1)(w) requires only that the accused had knowledge of the victim's caste. The Court found sufficient prima facie evidence that respondent no.2 had such knowledge, including his own admission of relationship with the victim and derogatory casteist remarks made during stalking.
Conversely, the Court upheld the Trial Court's discharge of respondent no.3 under Section 3(1)(w) since there was no material indicating his knowledge of the victim's caste or acquaintance with her.
Regarding charges under Section 328 IPC (administering intoxicants) and Section 14(3) POCSO Act (using child for pornographic purposes), the Court agreed with the Trial Court that there was no substantive evidence such as recovery of intoxicants or electronic evidence of video recording, justifying non-framing of charges on these counts.
The Court also rejected the plea that the Trial Court was not competent to frame charges under the SC/ST Act as this objection was raised belatedly during final arguments and hence not maintainable.
In conclusion, the Delhi High Court partially allowed the petition by directing framing of charges under Section 3(1)(w) of the SC/ST Act against respondent no.2. The rest of the Trial Court's order was upheld. The Court clarified that its observations shall not prejudice either party at trial and directed the District and Sessions Judge of Karkardooma Courts to take necessary steps.
This judgment underscores the judiciary's sensitivity to the protective objectives of the SC/ST Act and the importance of not allowing procedural omissions or delays to undermine substantive justice in cases of caste-based atrocities, especially involving vulnerable victims such as minor girls subjected to sexual violence.
Bottom Line:
Framing of charges under SC/ST Act and related provisions of IPC and POCSO Act - Court emphasizes that mere non-mention of allegations in FIR or initial complaint cannot discard applicability of SC/ST Act, especially in cases involving heinous offenses such as gang rape of a minor girl.
Statutory provision(s): Sections 3(1)(e), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(w) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; Sections 376, 328, 363, 366, 506, 120B, 365 of Indian Penal Code, 1860; Sections 6, 8, 12, 14(3), 17 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012; Sections 397, 401, 407, 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Prosecutrix R v. State of NCT of Delhi, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2980682
