[2025:RJ-JP:20915] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 1092/2024 1. Dilip Parmar S/o Bhagwan Singh, R/o Kheda Thakur, District Bharatpur. 2. Bhagwan Singh S/o Roshan Singh, R/o Kheda Thakur, District Bharatpur. 3. Sunil Kumar S/o Bhagwan Singh, R/o Kheda Thakur, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan). 4. Bhanu Singh S/o Bhagwan Singh, R/o Kheda Thakur , District Bharatpur (Rajasthan). ----Appellants Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. 2. Madan Mohan Bhandari S/o Vedriya, R/o Kheda Thakur, Police Station Rudawal, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan). ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Saurabh Yadav For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP Mr. Sukhdev Singh Solanki HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 15/05/2025 1. Instant S.B. Criminal Appeal is preferred by appellants- accused aggrieved from order dated 29.01.2024 in sessions case No. 157/2022 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act Cases, Bharatpur, to frame the charge under Sections 332 or 332/34, 353 or 353/34, 325 or 325/34, 308 or 308/34 IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act. 2. Learned counsel for appellants (accused) while relying upon grounds of appeal submitted that the appellants are innocent [2025:RJ-JP:20915] (2 of 5) [CRLAS-1092/2024] person and they were falsely implicated under the influence of respondent No.2. He further submitted that Trial Court has passed an orderto frame charge in most cryptic manner and without assigning any reason. He further referred the Parcha Bayan of victim and submitted that no specific words to invoke provision under SC/ST (POA) Act were used in Parcha Bayan. He further referred the site plan and submitted that the place of incidence is personal property of respondent No.2, and same is not a public place. He further submitted that this is a very interesting case wherein original contractor of electricity has refused for the work assigned by respondent No.2, and an implanted contractor was called for specific job but the Trial Court has ignored all these materials on record. He further submitted that the statement of original contractor was recorded by the police and available on record which is sufficient to show mala fides of respondent No.2. He further referred the charge-sheet and submitted that the attending circumstances were not mentioned by the Investigating Officer but the circumstances mentioned thereunder also indicate that no incident was happened either in public view or at public place. He further submitted that there is animosity between the parties and the Trial Court has not considered the grounds on merit, as required under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. He further referred the statement of witness recorded by police and submitted that from statement, the story of prosecution is shattered and the trial Court has ignored the material on record while framing the charge. He also referred the treatment record and also the video as referred in charge-sheet and submitted that same is sufficient to show that no case under SC/ST (POA) is made out. [2025:RJ-JP:20915] (3 of 5) [CRLAS-1092/2024] 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for respondent-complainant and learned Public Prosecutor. 4. Learned counsel for complainant has submitted that there were number of injuries upon body of respondent No.2, who also sustained grievous injuries and same is sufficient to show that the appellants have assaulted with premeditated plan. He further submitted that as per evidence two incidents were happened firstly at the place of complainant and secondly on public way and he referred two site plans, as prepared by police. He further submitted that the police has recorded statement of independent witness who supported the case of prosecution. He further submitted that the material on record is sufficient to frame charge against the appellants and Trial Court has not committed any error while framing the charge against the appellants. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 6. On basis of a Parcha Bayan of respondent No.2 Madan Mohan recorded on 03.04.2022 while he was under treatment at C.S.C. Rudawal, District Bharatpur FIR No. 146/2022 was registered at P.S. Rudawal, District Bharatpur under Sections 143, 332, 353 IPC amd Sections 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act. After investigation, police has filed a charge-sheet against all four appellants under Sections 332, 353, 325, 308 and 34 IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act. 7. A perusal of order dated 29.01.2024 indicate that after perusal of record, when a prima facie case is made out, the charge were framed but the order sans reason to show why the charge is made out and what are the grounds referred by the counsels to [2025:RJ-JP:20915] (4 of 5) [CRLAS-1092/2024] seek discharge under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. (now Section 250 of BNSS). 8. A Sessions Court is duty bound to consider whether upon consideration of record of the case and documents submitted therewith and hearing submission of accused and prosecution, a case for discharge is made or not but in case of discharge the reasons are required to be assigned. If a Sessions Judge is of the opinion that after considering submissions as provided under Section 227 of Cr.P.C., there exists a ground for presuming that accused has committed an offence then either the order under sub-Section (a) of Section 228 Cr.P.C. or under sub-Section(b) of Section 228 Cr.P.C. may be passed. The pari materia provision is included under Section 250 of BNSS and it provides that accused may prefer an application for discharge within a period of 60 days from the date of commitment of case under Section 232 of BNSS, thereafter in case accused is not discharged under Section 250 of BNSS then provision under Section 251 of BNSS is applicable. A Trial Court is under an obligation to consider the material forwarded by the police in order to frame charge under Section 228(1)(b) of Cr.P.C/251(b) of B.N.S.S. 9. The provision of SC/ST (POA) Act refers to a public view not a public place and to invoke the provision it is necessary that act of insult or intimidation must be witnessed by individuals other than victim who consider the act as an offence. Thus, time and again Hon’ble Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of public view as a crucial element in determining whether an offence under the SC/ST (POA) Act has been made out. Herein, this case the order of Trial Court is a cryptic order and it sans the reason, [2025:RJ-JP:20915] (5 of 5) [CRLAS-1092/2024] therefore, it is not possible for us to know why the charges were framed against the appellants. The order dated 29.01.2024 creates a doubt on application of mind and we have no option, except to refrain ourselves from considering the merits of the case. We are of the view that matter is required to be remitted back to the Trial court for consideration fresh in accordance with law. 10. In view of discussions made hereinabove, the instant appeal is hereby allowed and order dated 29.01.2024 in sessions case No. 157/2022 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Trial Court for fresh consideration at the stage of charge in accordance with Section 250 and 251 of BNSS. 11. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MONU /88