The Allahabad High Court (Full Bench) has resolved a significant legal conundrum regarding the appropriate appellate procedure when an accused is acquitted under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (“SC/ST Act”) but convicted under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The decision clarifies the interpretation of Section 14A of the SC/ST Act and its interaction with the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
This judgment came in response to the appeals filed in Criminal Appeal Nos. 2174 and 2179 of 2024, involving appellants Shailendra Yadav @ Salu and Abhishek Yadav @ Putan, who were acquitted under the SC/ST Act but convicted for IPC offences by a Special Court. The matter was referred to a Full Bench to resolve conflicting judicial interpretations.
Case Background
The appellants were tried by a Special Court constituted under the SC/ST Act. While the court acquitted them of charges under the SC/ST Act, they were convicted for certain IPC offences. Following their conviction, the appellants filed appeals under Section 374 of the CrPC.
The legal issue arose because a prior Division Bench in Teja vs. State of U.P. held that in cases of acquittal under the SC/ST Act but conviction under IPC, the appeal must be filed under the CrPC. However, a Single Judge took a divergent view, suggesting that the appeal should be filed under Section 14A of the SC/ST Act due to its non-obstante clause and victim-centric framework. To reconcile these differences, the case was referred to a Full Bench for authoritative determination.
Important Legal Issues
1. Applicable Appellate Forum:
– Should an appeal in cases of acquittal under the SC/ST Act but conviction under IPC be filed under Section 14A of the SC/ST Act or the CrPC?
2. Scope of the SC/ST Act’s Non-Obstante Clause:
– Does the non-obstante clause in Section 14A of the SC/ST Act override provisions of the CrPC for appeals?
3. Special Court Jurisdiction:
– Does the acquittal of an accused under the SC/ST Act affect the Special Court’s jurisdiction or its characterization for appellate purposes?
Important Observations by the Court
The Full Bench, comprising Justice Vivek Chaudhary, Justice Karunesh Singh Pawar, and Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan, conducted an exhaustive analysis of the statutory framework and made the following observations:
1. Legislative Intent of the SC/ST Act:
– The court emphasized the victim-centric purpose of the SC/ST Act, as reflected in its preamble and Statement of Objects and Reasons. The Act aims to provide special procedural protections to marginalized communities, including the establishment of Special Courts and Exclusive Special Courts.
– The court remarked, “The legislative scheme of the SC/ST Act demonstrates a clear intent to provide a streamlined appellate mechanism to address grievances of victims and accused through Section 14A.”
2. Non-Obstante Clause in Section 14A:
– The court highlighted that Section 14A begins with a non-obstante clause, which explicitly overrides conflicting provisions of the CrPC concerning appellate procedures.
– “When an appealable order is passed by a Special Court or Exclusive Special Court, the appellate forum lies under Section 14A of the SC/ST Act, irrespective of whether the conviction is under IPC or SC/ST Act,” the bench clarified.
3. Jurisdiction of Special Courts:
– The court clarified that the character of the Special Court does not change merely because the accused is acquitted under the SC/ST Act. The court retains its jurisdiction over the case, making appeals under Section 14A applicable.
– “The acquittal under the SC/ST Act does not strip the Special Court of its authority or change the forum of appeal. The non-obstante clause in Section 14A prevails over other procedural laws,” the court observed.
4. Literal Interpretation of Section 14A:
– The court emphasized that when the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, a literal interpretation must be applied. It stated, “The plain and unambiguous language of Section 14A indicates that all appeals against orders, sentences, or judgments of a Special Court or Exclusive Special Court must be brought under its purview.”
Decision of the Court
The Full Bench ruled in favor of appeals being filed under Section 14A of the SC/ST Act, even in cases where the accused is acquitted under the SC/ST Act but convicted under the IPC. The court decisively overturned the Division Bench ruling in Teja vs. State of U.P., holding:
Appeals Must Be Filed Under Section 14A:
The appellate forum for judgments of Special Courts remains governed by the SC/ST Act’s framework, irrespective of acquittal under the Act.
Reaffirming Victim-Centric Provisions:
The court reiterated the importance of maintaining the victim-centric approach of the SC/ST Act, ensuring timely and effective redressal mechanisms.
Constitutional Consistency:
The bench held that its interpretation aligns with constitutional mandates under Articles 14 and 21, providing fair treatment to victims and accused alike.
The bench concluded by underscoring the objective of the SC/ST Act to ensure efficient administration of justice for marginalized communities. It directed that appeals under such circumstances must be heard expeditiously, in line with the Act’s provisions for speedy trial and appellate review.
Appearances:
S/Shri Avinash Singh Vishen, Prashant Kumar Srivastava, assisted by Ankit Baranwal and Ankit Gautam, S.M. Singh Royekwar assisted by Sumeet Tahilramani and Eshan Kumar Gupta, Ms. Saumya Singh, Vaibhav Srivastava, Saksham Agarwal against the Reference and S/Shri I.B. Singh assisted by Nischal Verma, Nadeem Murtaza assisted by Shubham Tripathi, Harsh Vardhan Kediya, Wali Nawaz Khan and Ms. Snigdha Singh, Ishan Baghel, Vikas Vikram Singh assisted by Shri Naved Ali, Yash Bhardwaj, Rajat Gangwar, Anand Kumar, Vivek Bhushan Gupta, Saurabh Upadhyay, Skand Bajpai Ms. Swati Singh, Abhinav Srivastava and Mayuresh Srivastava, as well as Dr. V. K. Singh, Government Advocate assisted by Anurag Varma, AGA-I, G.D. Bhatt, AGA-I, Pawan Kumar Mishra, AGA, Ajit Singh and Ms. Rani Singh, Brief Holders, Anupam Mehrotra, Aishvarya Mathur, Shreshth Srivastava, Sandeep Yadav, Ashutosh Kumar Shukla and Ayusth Tandon in support of the Reference.
