SHASHIKANT SHARMA & ORS. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
[2023] 15 S.C.R. 1067, Supreme Court of India, 2023
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Issues
[2023] 15 S.C.R. 1067 : 2023 INSC 1036
1067
CASE DETAILS
SHASHIKANT SHARMA & ORS.
v. 
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 3663 of 2023)
DECEMBER 01, 2023
[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA AND 
SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Whether the prima facie ingredients of the 
oﬀ ence punishable u/s. 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act were made out against the 
appellants.
Penal Code, 1860 – ss.147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 504 – Scheduled 
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – 
s.3(2)(v) – Appellants, at the outset, conceded that so far as the oﬀ ences 
punishable under IPC are concerned, the prayer for discharge would 
require extensive evaluation of evidence and hence, challenge to the 
order framing charges was given up – However, the ingredients of s.3(2)
(v) of the SC/ST Act are not prima facie made out against the accused 
appellants from the admitted allegations of the prosecution.
Held: As per the highest case of prosecution, the accused ‘VU’ ﬁ red 
a gun shot at ‘R’ which hit him in the left thigh – The only projection 
made in the prosecution case regarding the oﬀ ence under SC/ST Act was 
that the witness ‘VK’ being a member of SC community was subjected 
to casteist abuses by the accused appellants after the gunshot was ﬁ red 
at ‘R’ – However, the medicolegal report opined that a boil/abscess was 
noticed on R’s thigh and no evidence of gun shot was found – From a 
bare perusal of the s.3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, it is
crystal clear that for 
the oﬀ ence to be constituted, there must be an allegation that the accused 
not being a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe committed an 
oﬀ ence under the IPC punishable for a term of 10 years or more against
1068 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 15 S.C.R.
a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe knowing that such 
person belongs to such ‘community’ – Going by the material collected 
during investigation, it is manifest that the incident had the undertones of a 
political rivalry – Be that as it may, as per the highest case of prosecution, 
the only oﬀ ence under IPC punishable with imprisonment of 10 years or 
more being the oﬀ ence u/s. 307 IPC has been applied on the basis of the 
gun shot allegedly ﬁ red by the accused ‘VU’ upon ‘R’, which admittedly 
did not result into any corresponding injury – After perusal of the entire 
material on record, there is no hesitation in concluding that from the 
admitted case set up by the prosecution, there is no such allegation that 
the oﬀ ence under IPC punishable with imprisonment of 10 years or more 
was committed by an accused of upper caste upon a person belonging 
to the Scheduled Caste community with the knowledge that such person 
belonged to the said community. [Paras 14, 15, 16, 17]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Suresh @ Pappu Bhudharmal Kalani v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 
(2001) SC 1375 – referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
3663 of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.04.2023 of the High Court of 
Judicature at Allahabad in CRLA No.3107 of 2023.
Appearances:
R. Basant, Sr. Adv., Neeraj K. Sharma, Priyanka Sharma,
Harendra 
Singh, Pawan Kumar Sharma, Amit Shrivastava, P. Sharma, Sharath, Advs. 
for the Appellants.
Sharan Dev Singh Thakur, A.A.G., Sanjay Hegde, Sr. Adv., Ms. 
Swetashwa Agarwal, Sanchit Garga, Ms. Mithu Jain, Kunal Rana, Ms. 
Sneha Goswami, Ms. Ruchira Goel, Aviral Saxena, Sharanya Sinha, Harsh 
Pratap Shahi, Mustafa Sajad, Adit Jayeshbhai Shah, Ms. Keerti Jaya, Advs. 
for the Respondents.
1069
SHASHIKANT SHARMA & ORS. v. STATE OF UTTAR 
PRADESH & ANR.
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT
MEHTA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The instant appeal has been preferred by the accused appellants 
questioning the legality and validity of the Order dated 6th April, 2023 passed 
by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 
rejecting the Criminal Appeal No. 3107/2023 preferred by the accused 
appellants under Section 14A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled 
Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989(hereinafter being referred to as 
the ‘SC/ST Act’). The learned appellate Court aﬃ  rmed the Order dated 14th 
March, 2023 passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST(PoA) Act, Hathras 
in Session Case No. 228/2021, rejecting the application for discharge ﬁ led by 
the accused appellants under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 
1973(hereinafter being referred to as the ‘CrPC’) and directing framing of 
charges against them for the oﬀ ences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 
149, 307, 323, 504 of Indian Penal Code, 1860(hereinafter being referred 
to as the ‘IPC’) and Section 3(2)(v)of the SC/ST Act. By the said Order, the 
learned Special Judge also directed that the accused appellants shall remain 
present in the Court on the appointed date.
3. It may be mentioned that vide Order dated 19th May 2023, this 
Court had directed that the bonds executed by the accused appellants in 
pursuance of the Order dated 2ndSeptember, 2022
passed by the High Court 
shall remain in force and non-bailable warrants which had been issued at 
that stage, shall not be executed until further consideration.
4. Learned senior counsel for the appellants, at the outset, conceded 
that so far as the oﬀ ences punishable under IPC are concerned, the prayer 
for discharge would require extensive evaluation of evidence and hence, 
he gave up the challenge made on behalf of the accused appellants to the 
Order framing charges qua these oﬀ ences. However, the fervent contention 
of learned senior counsel was that the ingredients of Section 3(2)(v) of the 
SC/ST Act are not prima facie made out against the accused appellants from 
the admitted allegations of the prosecution and hence, the accused appellants 
deserve indulgence of this Court and the impugned orders are liable to be 
interfered with to this extent.
1070 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 15 S.C.R.
5. Learned senior counsel contended that for the oﬀ ence under Section 
3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act to be made out, there must be a speciﬁ c allegation of 
the prosecution that the accused committed an oﬀ ence punishable under the 
provisions of the IPC against a member of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled 
Tribe knowing that the victim belongs to such community. Referring to the 
impugned orders, the allegations made in the FIR and the statements of the 
witnesses recorded during investigation under Section 161 CrPC, learned 
senior counsel pointed out that as per the highest case of prosecution, the 
accused Vinod Upadhyay ﬁ red a gun shot at Rinku Thakur which hit him in 
the left thigh. The only projection made in the prosecution case regarding 
the oﬀ ence under SC/ST Act was that the witness Virender Kumar being a 
member of SC community was subjected to casteist abuses by the accused 
appellants after the gunshot had been ﬁ red at Rinku Thakur. He urged that the 
entire thrust of the prosecution case regarding the oﬀ ences committed under 
the provisions of the IPC is focussed qua Rinku Thakur and thus,there is no 
factual or legal basis for the charge framed against the accused appellants 
for the oﬀ ence punishable under Sections 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.
6. Without prejudice to the above, learned senior counsel urged that the 
entire prosecution case is false and fabricated and lodged as a counterblast 
on account of political
vendetta. He urged that the theory set up by the 
prosecution in the FIR and in the statement of the prosecution witnesses 
that Rinku Thakur was caused a ﬁ re arm injury is patently falsiﬁ ed from 
the medicolegal report prepared by the Medical Jurist who examined Rinku 
Thakur opining that a boil/abscess was noticed on his thigh and no evidence 
of gun shot was found.
7. He submitted thatit is the members of the complainant party who 
killed Pushpendra from the side of the accused appellants and, thereafter, 
in order to create defence, apatently false criminal case was registered 
against the accused appellants on fabricated allegations. On these grounds, 
learned senior counsel implored the Court to accept the appeal and reverse 
the impugned orders to the extent of the charge framed against the accused 
appellants for the oﬀ ence punishable under Sections 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST 
Act.
8. Per contra, learned AAG representing the State of Uttar Pradesh and 
learned counsel representing the complainant respondent no. 2 vehemently 
and fervently controverted the submissions of learned counsel for the
1071
SHASHIKANT SHARMA & ORS. v. STATE OF UTTAR 
PRADESH & ANR. [SANDEEP MEHTA, J.]
appellants. It was submitted that the accused appellants launched a concerted 
attack upon the members of the complainant party simply because they were 
canvassing for the other political party.
9. The Court was taken through the order passed by the learned Special 
Judge with particular reference to the allegation that the investigating 
oﬃ  cers were pressurised to give negative report under Section 173 CrPC. 
Using their political clout, the accused persons even managed to obstruct 
the lodging of FIR and with great diﬃ  culty and after intervention of the 
Court, the FIR was got registered. The investigation was manipulated at the 
instance of a former Cabinet Minister in the Government of Uttar Pradesh. 
They urged that from the statement of Virender Kumar recorded under 
Section 161 CrPC, it is clearly borne out that after the accused persons had 
ﬁ red the gun shot at Rinku Thakur, they turned their attention towards the 
witness and hurled caste-based abuses towards him and threatened him 
with dire consequences.
10. As per the learned AAG appearing for the State of Uttar Pradesh 
and learned counsel for the complainant, the allegations set out in the FIR 
and statements of the witnesses examined under Section 161 CrPC clearly 
disclose necessary ingredients of the oﬀ ences alleged and as per them, there 
is no scope for interference in the impugned orders. They sought dismissal 
of
the appeal. These oral submissions have further been supplemented by 
written submissions which are virtually reiteration of what was argued 
before the Court. 
11. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned 
counsel at the Bar and have perused the material available on record.
12. At the outset, it may be emphasised that in the written submissions 
ﬁ led on behalf of the State, the pertinent plea raised by the learned counsel 
for the appellants that necessary ingredients of the oﬀ ence punishable 
under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act are not made out from the admitted 
allegations of the prosecution, has not been speciﬁ cally controverted. 
There cannot be any quarrel with the principles laid down in the judgments 
cited by the State counsel in the written submissions that at the stage of 
framing of charges, the Court is not required to undertake a meticulous 
evaluation of evidence and even grave suspicion is suﬃ  cient to frame 
charge. Nevertheless, there is also a long line of precedents that from the 
admitted evidence of the prosecution as reﬂ ected in the documents ﬁ led
1072 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 15 S.C.R.
by the Investigating Oﬃ  cer in the report under Section 173 CrPC, if the 
necessary ingredients of an oﬀ ence are not made out then the Court is not 
obligated to frame charge for such oﬀ ence against the accused. Reference 
in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by this Court in the 
case of Suresh @ Pappu Bhudharmal Kalani Vs. State of Maharashtra 
reported in AIR 2001 SC 1375.
13. Learned senior counsel representing the accused appellants had 
restricted his submissions to the extent of charge framed under Section 3(2)
(v) of the SC/ST Act. Thus the language of the said provision needs to be 
considered and the same is reproduced herein below for the sake of ready 
reference:-
“3. Punishments for oﬀ ences of atrocities.
(2) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled 
Tribe, —
….
(v) commits any oﬀ ence under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) 
punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more against 
a person or property knowing that such person is a member of a 
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to 
such member, shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and 
with ﬁ ne.”
14. From a bare perusal of the provision, it is crystal clear that for the 
above oﬀ ence to be constituted, there must be an allegation that the accused 
not being a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe committed an 
oﬀ ence 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’.
15. Going by the material collected during investigation, it is manifest 
that the incident had the undertones of a political rivalry. At this stage, we 
may note that though learned counsel for the appellants gave up the challenge 
to the charge framed against the accused appellants for the oﬀ ence punishable 
under Section 307 IPC but the fact remains that when the witness Rinku 
Thakur who alleged that he was shot upon by the accused Vinod Upadhyay, 
was medically examined, no corresponding gun shot injury was observed 
on his person.
1073
16. Be that as it may, as per the highest case of prosecution, the only 
oﬀ ence under IPC punishable with imprisonment of 10 years or more being 
the oﬀ ence under Section 307 IPC has been applied on the basis of the gun 
shot allegedly ﬁ red by the accused Vinod Upadhyay upon Rinku Thakur, 
which admittedly did not result into any corresponding injury. After perusal 
of the entire material on record,we have no hesitation in concluding that 
from the admitted case set up by the prosecution, there is no such allegation 
that the oﬀ ence under IPC punishable with imprisonment of 10 years or 
more was committed by an accused of upper caste upon a person belonging 
to the Scheduled Caste community with the knowledge that such person 
belonged to the said community.
17. Hence, there is merit in the contention of learned counsel 
representing the appellants that prima facie ingredients of the oﬀ ence 
punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act are not made out from 
the admitted allegations of prosecution and to this extent, the charge framed 
against the accused appellants is groundless. 
18. Resultantly, the impugned orders to the extent of charge framed 
against the accused appellants for the oﬀ ence punishable under Sections 3(2)
(v) of the SC/ST Act and the order rejecting the appeal cannot be sustained 
and are hereby quashed and set aside. However, the trial of the accused for 
the remaining oﬀ ences shall continue. The accused appellants already stand
released on bonds as indicated in the Order dated 19th May, 2023 passed by 
this Court. The bonds so submitted shall enure till conclusion of the trial. 
The non-bailable warrants issued against the accused by the trial Court are 
hereby quashed. As a consequence of quashing of the charge for the oﬀ ence 
punishable under the SC/ST Act, and since the remaining charges are for the 
oﬀ ences punishable under IPC, the trial of the case shall stand transferred 
from the Special Court to the Court of Sessions having jurisdiction to try 
the case.
19. The appeal stands allowed as above.
20. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
Headnotes prepared by: 
Appeal allowed.
Ankit Gyan
SHASHIKANT SHARMA & ORS. v. STATE OF UTTAR 
PRADESH & ANR. [SANDEEP MEHTA, J.]