Subsequent Declaration Of Juvenility Does Not Vitiate Conviction On Merits: Supreme Court Borrowers Cannot Ignore Bank Accounting Systems And Suspense Accounts To Claim Arbitrary Reductions In Loan Dues: Supreme Court Re-employed Judicial Officers Cannot Claim 6th Pay Commission Scales: Supreme Court Supreme Court Slams High Court For Erroneously Exercising Review Jurisdiction On 'Mistaken Notion', Restores Employee's ACP Benefits Trademark Infringement: Defendant Can Cross-Examine Plaintiff On Use Of Brand Name Even If Written Statement Is Not On Record: Supreme Court 'Interest And Welfare Of Child Would Be Best Served': Supreme Court Invokes Parens Patriae In Contempt Plea; Revokes Own Custody Order Mere Absence From MCA Records Cannot Absolve Accused Under Section 138 NI Act If Prima Facie Role Is Shown: Punjab & Haryana High Court Incomplete Or Defective Real Estate Application Cannot Claim Deemed Registration Under Section 5(2) Of RERA Act: Orissa High Court Mere Criminal Antecedents Cannot Justify Invoking 'Organized Crime' Offence Under Section 111 BNS Without Fulfilling Statutory Ingredients: Madhya Pradesh High Court 'Testator's Character & Prior Gifts Justify Unequal Distribution': Madras High Court Upholds Holographic Will Minority Status Cannot Arrest Limitation Period For Appeal If Minor Was Represented By Natural Guardian In Original Proceedings: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mere Admission Of Property Boundaries In Family Partition Deeds Destroys Coparceners' Claim That Land Remains Joint Ancestral Property: Karnataka High Court Mesne Profits Must Reflect Open Market Letting Value Rather Than Static Contractual Rates: Delhi High Court Law Graduates Who Fail To Clear AIBE Within Two Years Cannot Practice In Any Court, Tribunal Or Revenue Authority: Allahabad High Court Bombay High Court Slams 'Growing Tendency' To Bypass GST Appeals, Says 'Natural Justice' Not A Blanket Excuse For Writ Petitions Proportionate Cost Only Can Be Awarded On Decreed Amount, Not On Total Plaint Valuation: Kerala High Court

Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Charge: No Allegation Must Match Specific Legal Criteria

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling  has quashed the charges framed under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against Shashikant Sharma & Ors. In their appeal against the State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. This decision is pivotal in the context of how charges under the SC/ST Act are to be framed and assessed.

Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta, presiding over the case, emphasized a crucial legal standard in their judgment: “There must be an allegation that the accused, not being a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, committed an offence under the IPC punishable for a term of 10 years or more against a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe knowing that such person belongs to such ‘community’.”

The appeal challenged the decision of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and the Special Judge under SC/ST(PoA) Act in Hathras, which had upheld the charges under both the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the SC/ST Act. The appellants argued against the validity of the charges, particularly under the SC/ST Act.

The Supreme Court, in its analysis, found that the allegations did not sufficiently indicate that the offences were committed with the specific knowledge that the victim was a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The Court’s ruling underscores the importance of meeting every legal requirement for framing a charge under the SC/ST Act.

The judgment maintains that the trial for other IPC offences will proceed in the relevant Court of Sessions. This landmark ruling brings into focus the necessity of precise and legally sound allegations to uphold charges under specialized laws like the SC/ST Act, setting a precedent for future cases.

Date of Decision: 1st December 2023

SHASHIKANT SHARMA & ORS. VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

Latest Legal News