2026:JHHC:10651 1 Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 860 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 860 of 2025 Shobhan Ram aged about 57 years son of Rupchandra Baitha, resident of village Sagma, P.O. Katahar Kala, P.S. Dhurki, District Garhwa …....... Appellant(s) Vrs. 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Rameshwar Yadav son of Late Oban Yadav; 3.Ravindra Yadav son of Late Oban Yadav; 4.Chandrakant Yadav son of Ravindra Yadav; 5.Suryakant Yadav son of Ravindra Yadav; 6.Dhirendra Yadav son of Rameshwar Yadav; All resident of village Sagma, P.O. Katahar Kala, P.S. Dhurki, District Garhwa ........ Respondent(s) ….... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR For the Appellant(s) : Mr. S.T. Sajid, Advocate Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Shweta Singh, A.P.P. 04/15.04.2026 The present appeal has been filed under Section 14 (A) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. 3. The present criminal appeal is directed against the order dated 30.07.2025 passed in Complaint Case No. 76 of 2023 by the learned court of ASG-I cum Spl. Court for SC/ST (POA) Act Cases, Nagar Utari, Garhwa whereby and whereunder the learned Court has been pleased to dismiss the Complaint Case No. 76 of 2023 filed by the complainant under Section 147,148,149,341, 323,452,427 & 504 of the IPC and under Section 3(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. 4. It appears that the complainant has filed a complaint petition being Complaint Case No. 76 of 2023 making an allegation that the accused persons with arms entered into the house of the complainant and abused by taking name of his caste and threatened the complainant to leave the place. The accused persons forcefully filled the tank of the latrine belonging to the complainant. 5. At the instance of the Court, F.I.R has been lodged which is numbered as Dhurki P.S. Case No. 08 of 2023. After investigation the 2026:JHHC:10651 2 Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 860 of 2025 Police has submitted the final form stating that it is a civil dispute between the parties. The learned Trial Court after scrutinizing the evidences on record has found that no material has been brought on record that the alleged victim is a member of Scheduled Caste community and the accused are not the member of Scheduled Caste /Scheduled Tribe community. 6. The definition of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe has been enunciated in Section 2(c) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, which reads as under: “2. Definitions 1. In this Act unless the context otherwise requires – a……… b……… c. "Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes" shall have the meanings assigned to them respectively under clause (24) and clause (25) of article 366 of the Constitution;” 7. Thus, whether a person belongs to the Scheduled Caste /Scheduled Tribe community can only be evidenced through a certificate issued by the competent authority. It is also the mandate of the Act that any complaint can be made only against the non-member of the SC/ST community. That evidence is also missing. Based upon such finding, the learned Trial Court has rightly not entertained the protest petition cum complaint petition. 8. In view of the above discussion, I find no error in the order dated 30.07.2025 passed in Complaint Case No. 76 of 2023 by the learned court of ASJ-I cum-Spl. Court for SC/ST (POA), Act Cases, Nagar Utari, Garhwa. 9. In the result, the present criminal appeal is dismissed. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) 15.04.2026 A. Mohanty/Raja Uploaded ____/____/2026