The Delhi High Court held that mere knowledge of a victim’s caste by the accused is sufficient to attract charges under Section 3(1)(w) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, at the charge-framing stage, and that a delay in raising such allegation does not defeat the Act’s applicability. The Court modified the trial court’s order to frame an additional charge against the accused who had personal knowledge of the victim’s caste, while upholding the discharge of other accused and other provisions.
Background & Facts
The Incident
On 31.03.2016, the affected party, a school-going minor girl belonging to a Scheduled Caste, went to her school to collect her Class 10th result. While waiting outside the school gate at about 9:30 AM, respondent no. 2 (Tarun @ Jhabbar) arrived on a scooty with two other boys who dropped him and left. Shortly thereafter, juvenile ‘P’ reached on a bike, respondent no. 2 took the bike, forcibly made the affected party sit thereon, and took her to 5th Pushta, Usmanpur. He made a phone call from there, following which a white-coloured i20 car driven by respondent no. 3 (Sumit Dedha @ Shannu) arrived. Respondent no. 2 forcibly made the affected party sit in the car and took her to Noida via Gandhi Nagar, forcing her to consume beer purchased by respondent no. 3. Both respondents then took the affected party to a room where respondent no. 2 raped her and threatened to defame her by circulating a video of the incident, claiming his father was wealthy and no harm would befall him. Thereafter, respondents nos. 2 and 3 brought the affected party back to 5th Pushta, Usmanpur, and made her board a rickshaw.
Investigation and Charge Sheets
- The FIR was registered under Sections 376/365/506/34 of the IPC and Sections 6/8 of the POCSO Act.
- During investigation, the affected party’s statement under Section 164 CrPC reiterated the allegations, stating that respondent no. 2 had raped her and respondent no. 3 had made a video and attempted rape.
- First charge sheet dated 03.06.2016 was filed under Sections 363/328/376(2)(g)/506/120B/34 of the IPC and Sections 6/12/17 of the POCSO Act.
- Pursuant to the SC/ST Commission’s recommendation on a complaint filed by the affected party’s father, a supplementary charge sheet was filed on 03.01.2017 under Sections 363/328/376D/120B/34 of the IPC, Sections 06/14 of the POCSO Act, and Sections 3(1)(e), (r) and (w) of the SC/ST Act, 1989.
Trial Court’s Order
- The learned Trial Court (Additional Sessions Judge-01, Special Court POCSO, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts) framed charges under Sections 363/366/506 of the IPC read with Section 120B IPC, and under Section 6 of the POCSO Act read with Section 5(g) thereof, alternatively under Section 376D IPC vide impugned order dated 04.03.2017.
- No charges were framed under Sections 328/366A of the IPC, Section 14(3) of the POCSO Act, or Sections 3(1)(e), (r) and (w) of the SC/ST Act.
Procedural History
- 31.03.2016: Incident occurred.
- 03.06.2016: First charge sheet filed.
- 03.01.2017: Supplementary charge sheet filed incorporating SC/ST Act provisions.
- 04.03.2017: Impugned order framing charges passed by Trial Court.
- Thereafter: Affected party filed revision petition (CRL.REV.P. 410/2017) before the Delhi High Court challenging the impugned order.
- 19.12.2025: No appearance on behalf of respondent no. 2 despite repeated opportunities; proceeded ex parte.
- 21.08.2026: Reserved.
- 17.09.2026: Judgment pronounced.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought amendment of the impugned order dated 04.03.2017 to include charges under Sections 3(1)(e), (r) and (w) of the SC/ST Act, Section 14(3) of the POCSO Act, and Section 328 of the IPC, and to set aside the order to the extent of non-framing of such charges.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether mere knowledge of the victim’s caste by the accused, without an explicit allegation of caste-based motive in the FIR or Section 164 statement, suffices to attract charges under Section 3(1)(w) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, at the charge-framing stage, and whether a six-month delay in raising such an allegation defeats the applicability of the SC/ST Act provisions.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel submitted that the Trial Court was not a notified Special Court under the SC/ST Act and thus lacked competence to frame charges under that Act. On merits, the Court failed to appreciate the legislative intent behind the SC/ST Act, which is a legislative manifestation of Articles 14, 15, 17 and 21 of the Constitution. The FIR and the Section 164 statement not containing the victim’s caste name or an allegation of caste-based kidnapping/rape could not be a ground for refusing to frame charges under the SC/ST Act, as such an approach would defeat the very object of the enactment; reliance was placed on Ashabai Machindra Adhagale v. State of Maharashtra. Furthermore, the Trial Court ignored the statutory presumption under Section 8(c) of the SC/ST Act: where an accused has personal knowledge of the victim or family, the Court must presume knowledge of the victim’s caste/tribe. The material showed respondent nos. 2 and 3 were acquainted with the victim and resided in the same locality; respondent no. 2’s statement that the victim was his girlfriend and his interrogation report revealing caste-based taunts established such knowledge. Counsel also urged that charges should have been framed under Section 14(3) of the POCSO Act and Section 328 of the IPC due to sufficient material, and that the Learned APP supported the submission that a mere averment by the victim suffices for framing charge.
For the Respondent
Learned counsel for respondent no. 3 contended that the complaint, FIR and Section 164 statement contained no allegation to make out a case under the SC/ST Act; the allegation only surfaced six months later when the father filed a complaint before the SC/ST Commission, indicating an afterthought. The victim’s statements did not show any acquaintance with respondent no. 3 or knowledge of her caste, and she admitted she had never met him. Consequently, the Trial Court was justified in discharging respondent no. 3 from charges under Section 14(3) of the POCSO Act and Section 328 of the IPC for want of foundational material. It was also submitted that respondent no. 2 had not appeared after 19.12.2025, leading to ex parte proceedings.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by noting that the SC/ST Act, 1989, is a legislative measure intended to protect members of Scheduled Castes and Tribes who have suffered centuries of caste-based indignity, and that it gives effect to Articles 14, 15, 17 and 21 of the Constitution. Chapter II, Section 3 of the Act enumerates offences; some require proof that the act was committed solely on account of the victim’s caste, while others have a lower threshold requiring only that the perpetrator acted with knowledge of the victim’s caste or tribe.
Regarding Section 3(1)(w) of the SC/ST Act, the Court observed that the provision punishes any person who, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or Tribe, intentionally touches a woman belonging to such a community, knowing she belongs to it, when the act is of a sexual nature and without her consent. The explanation clarifies that mere knowledge of the victim’s caste is sufficient; the prosecution need not prove that the act was committed exclusively because of the victim’s caste.
At the charge-framing stage, the Court held that the Trial Court need only ascertain, prima facie, whether material on record shows that the accused had knowledge of the victim’s caste while committing the offence. The Charge Sheet indicated that respondent no. 2 and the victim were acquainted and resided in the same locality (Ambedkar Basti). Respondent no. 2’s own statement that the victim was his girlfriend further supported this acquaintance. The Interrogation Report revealed that respondent no. 2 had taunted the victim with caste-based remarks, and his statement that co-accused had told him the victim belonged to a lower caste and that he should take advantage of her demonstrated his knowledge of her caste. Consequently, the Court found that the Trial Court erred in not framing a charge under Section 3(1)(w) against respondent no. 2.
As to respondent no. 3, the victim’s Interrogation Report stated she did not know him prior to the incident and had met him for the first time on the date of the offence; no other material indicated his acquaintance with her family or knowledge of her caste. Therefore, the Trial Court was justified in declining to frame charges under Section 3(1)(w) against respondent no. 3.
Concerning Section 3(1)(e) (act committed with intent to publicly humiliate the victim on account of caste) and Section 3(1)(r) (intent to insult/intimidate to humiliate on account of caste), the Court held that the essential ingredient of intent to humiliate on account of caste, as required by Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand and Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala, was absent from the record. Hence, the discharge of respondent nos. 2 and 3 under these provisions was correct.
Regarding Section 328 IPC (administering a stupefying substance with intent to commit an offence), the allegation rested solely on the victim’s bare statement; no empty bottle, no substance recovered, and no medical opinion supported the claim. The Trial Court’s refusal to frame charge under this provision was thus justified.
Finally, for Section 14(3) of the POCSO Act (using a child for pornographic purposes), the allegation relied on the victim’s claim that respondent no. 3 made a video, but no supporting material - such as the mobile phone used for recording or any electronic evidence - was recovered. The Trial Court’s decision not to frame charge under this provision was therefore correct.
Accordingly, the Court modified the impugned order dated 04.03.2017 to the limited extent of framing an additional charge under Section 3(1)(w) of the SC/ST Act against respondent no. 2, leaving the remainder of the order undisturbed. The petition was partly allowed to that extent.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded in part. The Delhi High Court modified the Trial Court’s order dated 04.03.2017 to frame an additional charge under Section 3(1)(w) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, against respondent no. 2 (Tarun @ Jhabbar). All other findings of the Trial Court - including the discharge of respondent no. 3 from Sections 3(1)(e), (r) and (w) of the SC/ST Act, Section 14(3) of the POCSO Act and Section 328 IPC, and the framing of charges under other provisions - were affirmed. No monetary relief or compensation was awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Knowledge of Caste Suffices for SC/ST Charge
Practitioners must note that at the charge-framing stage, the prosecution need only show prima facie that the accused had knowledge of the victim’s caste or tribal identity. Explicit allegations of caste-based motive in the FIR or Section 164 statement are not mandatory. Evidence such as acquaintance, shared neighbourhood, statements indicating awareness of caste, or caste-based taunts can satisfy this requirement.
Delay Does Not Defeat SC/ST Applicability
A temporal gap between the incident and the raising of a caste-based allegation does not automatically render the SC/ST Act inapplicable. Courts must consider the victim’s psychological state, especially in cases of sexual violence, where delay may be attributable to trauma, shame or fear. The belated complaint by a family member or the SC/ST Commission can still ground the applicability of the Act.
Prima Facie Standard at Charge Framing
The Court reiterated that the Trial Court’s role is limited to determining whether there is sufficient material to proceed with trial, not to weigh evidence or determine guilt. Therefore, any material indicating the accused’s knowledge of the victim’s caste - such as statements, documents, or circumstantial evidence - should be enough to frame charges under the relevant SC/ST Act provisions, unless contradicted by reliable evidence.
