Patna High Court
Shivaji SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Holding
The Special Judge did not commit any error; a prima facie case exists and the discharge petition must be dismissed.
Summary
The appellants Shivaji Singh and others appealed against the order of the Additional District & Sessions Judge that rejected their discharge petition under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. The FIR alleged that on 11 August 2018 the accused, including the appellants, assaulted a group cleaning paddy fields, used caste-based abusive language, threatened them, and set fire to huts. The Special Judge had taken cognizance of the case against all fourteen persons named in the FIR despite the charge sheet naming only ten, and found a prima facie case under several IPC sections and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The appellants argued that the allegations were vague, the offences under the SC/ST Act were not made out, and the police report exonerated them, seeking quash of the proceedings. The State contended that the Special Judge correctly identified a prima facie case. The High Court held that at the stage of a discharge petition the court only needs to determine the existence of a prima facie case, not guilt, and affirmed the Special Judge's decision, dismissing the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether the Special Judge erred in rejecting the discharge petition under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C.
- Whether the allegations in the FIR disclose a prima facie case under the IPC and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the appellants
- Whether the evidence, including witness statements, is sufficient to sustain the charge despite the police report’s exoneration
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 227
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 341, 435
- SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v)
Subjects
- criminal law
- discharge petition
- prima facie case
- SC/ST Act
- caste-based violence
- charge framing
- appellate review
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1853 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-145 Year-2018 Thana- BHAGWANPUR District- Kaimur
(Bhabua)
======================================================
1. Shivaji Singh son of Babua Singh village-jaitpur kalan p.s-Bhagwanpur
2. chandra Shekhar singh son of shivaji singh village-jaitpur kalan p.s-
Bhagwanpur
3. Krishna singh@kaji singh son of shivaji singh village-jaitpur kalan p.s-
Bhagwanpur
4. Kamla Nand Singh son of late shiv sevak Lal( but in the F.I.R. Father name
disclosed as not known) village-jaitpur kalan p.s-Bhagwanpur
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Lutawan Ram son of late Rambaran Ram village-jaitpur kalan p.s-
Bhagwanpur
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Dudhnath Singh
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sadanand Paswan
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
9 10-03-2026 1. Heard the parties.
2. This appeal has been filed for quashing the order dated
12.01.2023 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions
Judge 1st-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Kaimur at Bhabhua in
I.A. No. 01 of 2022 in S.C./S.T. Trial Case No. 142 of 2018
arising out of Bhagwanpur P.S. Case No. 145 of 2018 dated
11.08.2018 registered under Section 147 / 148 / 149 / 341 /
323 / 307 / 435 of the I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(r)(s) SC / ST Act
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1853 of 2024(9) dt.10-03-2026
2/5
by which discharge petition of the appellants has been rejected.
3. The prosecution case as per the First Information Report
is that on 11.08.2018 at about 11:30 A.M. while the informant
along with others was engaged in cleaning paddy crops in their
agricultural land, in the meantime, the appellants along with ten
other co-accused persons arrived there on a tractor out of which
six unknown accused persons who were standing at some
distance and armed with weapons started abusing the informant
and others by taking their caste name and threatened them with
dire consequences if they did not vacate the land. It is alleged
that the accused persons started assaulting the informant and
other persons present there due to which they sustained injuries.
It has further been alleged that three huts which had been
constructed for cooking food and for temporary residence
during cutting of paddy crops were set on fire by the accused
persons due to which all the articles kept therein were
completely burnt.
4. The present case was instituted against 14 accused persons
but after investigation charge sheet was submitted only against
10 accused persons under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 307,
435 I.P.C. and under Section 3 (1) (r) (s), 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST
Act. Thereafter, learned Special Judge differing with the final
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1853 of 2024(9) dt.10-03-2026
3/5
report took cognizance under the same Sections against all 14
accused persons named in F.I.R. on 12.06.2020.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that upon bare
perusal of the First Information Report it would appear that
there are only general and omnibus allegations of assault against
the accused persons. The specific allegation of abusing the
informant and his companions by taking caste name and
threatening to kill them has been attributed to unknown persons.
It is further submitted that no offence under the provisions of the
SC/ST Act is made out against the appellants as the alleged
occurrence appears to have taken place on account of an old
land dispute between the parties. Learned counsel next submits
that the injuries sustained by the informant’s side are simple in
nature. It is also contended that Police while submitting police
report / charge sheet exonerated the appellants, however, the
learned Special Judge took cognizance against all the accused
persons.
6. Learned counsel next submits that the appellants have
been falsely implicated in the present case by the informant due
to village politics. He further submits that the entire prosecution
considering the aforesaid submission may be quashed.
7. Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the application of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1853 of 2024(9) dt.10-03-2026
4/5
the appellants and has submitted that learned Special Judge after
going through the materials available on record found prima
facie case against the appellants and there is no illegality in
rejection of discharge petition.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the materials on record including the impugned order.
9. From the impugned order it appears that the learned
Special Judge has taken note of the legal provisions that at the
time of deciding discharge petition filed by the accused the
court has to weigh the evidence for limited purpose to find out
whether or not a prima facie case against the accused is made
out. Guilt or innocence of the accused is not determined at the
time of framing of charge. Only existence of prima facie case is
enough. Charges can be framed on the basis of strong suspicion
also. The Court has taken note of the statement of witnesses
recorded during the course of investigation where all have taken
the name of these appellants also among other assailants and
also among those who uttered caste indicative abusive words.
10. From paragraph no. 23 to 28 of the case diary it appears
that six persons have sustained injuries. Meticulous examination
of materials collected during the course of investigation is not
required at the time of framing of charge.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1853 of 2024(9) dt.10-03-2026
5/5
11. Considering the aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion
that learned Special Court while rejecting the petition filed by
the appellants under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. for discharge has
committed no error and / or illegality. Accordingly, this
application is dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)
praful/-
U T
Checking your session…