Section 14-A SC/ST Act Appeal: Proceedings May Be Quashed Where the Charge-Sheet Rests on Materially Shifting Versions and Silent CCTV Evidence
1. Introduction
In Mahesh Tiwari v. State of U.P. and Another, the Allahabad High Court considered a criminal appeal under
Section 14-A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The appellant challenged the summoning order dated 14.10.2025 and the entire proceedings in a Special Case arising from an incident during a tender process at Zila Panchayat, Mahoba.
The complainant, Jai Prakash Anuragi, Chairman of the Zila Panchayat, alleged that the appellant and others interfered with the tender process, pushed a government employee, issued threats, and used caste-based abusive words. The prosecution invoked provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the SC/ST Act.
The principal issue before the Court was whether the summoning order and criminal proceedings could survive when the complainant and key witnesses had materially changed their versions during investigation, especially after viewing CCTV footage that had no audio.
2. Summary of the Judgment
The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the summoning order dated 14.10.2025, and quashed the entire proceedings against the appellant in Special Case No.86 of 2025.
The Court held that the prosecution case suffered from serious and material inconsistencies. The complainant initially named and assigned a role to Ankit Shukla, but later stated, after watching CCTV footage, that Ankit Shukla was not involved. Similar contradictions appeared in the statement of the alleged injured employee, Ram Milan Verma.
The Court also noted that the CCTV footage had no audio and showed only a brief and apparently normal interaction between the complainant, his associate, the appellant, and others. The Court found that the later CCTV-based version contradicted the earlier ocular version in the FIR and Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements.
Additionally, the Court observed that the term “court below” should not be used for Special Courts or Trial Courts and suggested adoption of the terminology “Trial Court” or “Special Court,” in line with the Supreme Court’s direction.
3. Analysis
A. Precedents Cited
State of Gujarat Versus Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta
The complainant relied on State of Gujarat Versus Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta to argue that once a charge-sheet is filed and cognizance is taken, the summoning order should not lightly be interfered with. That case concerned the setting aside of a Magistrate’s cognizance order by the High Court in criminal revision.
The Allahabad High Court distinguished the present matter by emphasizing that this was not a criminal revision, but a statutory appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the SC/ST Act. That provision expressly permits an appeal to the High Court from any judgment, sentence, or non-interlocutory order of a Special Court or Exclusive Special Court, both on facts and law.
Therefore, the Court held that it had jurisdiction to examine the legality and factual foundation of the summoning order and the proceedings.
Sakhawat and Another v. State of U.P.
The Court cited Sakhawat and Another v. State of U.P., where the Supreme Court directed that Trial Courts should not be referred to as “Lower Courts” and that records should be called “Trial Court Record” rather than “Lower Court Record.”
Relying on this direction, the High Court observed that the terminology “court below” is also inappropriate, especially when referring to a Special Court under the SC/ST Act. It directed that the matter be placed before the Registrar General for possible administrative implementation.
B. Legal Reasoning
The Court’s reasoning rested primarily on the unreliability of the prosecution version. The FIR was lodged the next day by a responsible public functionary, yet the complainant’s later statements materially altered the identity and role of accused persons.
The complainant initially asserted that Ankit Shukla had caught hold of the employee and participated in the incident. Later, after viewing CCTV footage, he stated that Ankit Shukla was not involved and that some other person, possibly the appellant’s driver, was responsible. The injured witness also changed his version in a similar manner.
The Court found it significant that the CCTV footage contained no audio. Therefore, it could not prove the alleged caste-based abuses. Moreover, the footage showed the complainant and another Zila Panchayat member coming out for about two minutes, speaking with the appellant and his associates, and then returning to the office. Their demeanor appeared normal.
The Court held that electronic evidence may be admissible, but in this case it could not cure the contradictions in ocular evidence. Rather, the prosecution itself had shifted from its original ocular version to a CCTV-based version, creating doubt about the entire case.
The Court also noted the allegation that the appellant had come to submit his tender and that there was a dispute over participation in the tender process. This background added context to the possibility of a motivated prosecution.
C. Impact
This judgment is significant for SC/ST Act prosecutions arising from public or institutional disputes. It confirms that proceedings under the SC/ST Act are serious, but they cannot continue where the foundational facts are unstable, materially altered, or contradicted by the prosecution’s own evidence.
The decision also clarifies that an appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the SC/ST Act is a substantive appellate remedy, allowing the High Court to examine both facts and law while reviewing orders of the Special Court.
On electronic evidence, the ruling indicates that silent CCTV footage cannot by itself establish spoken caste-based abuse. Where the charge depends on words allegedly uttered, the absence of audio becomes crucial, especially if witness statements are inconsistent.
Administratively, the judgment reinforces the move away from hierarchical language such as “lower court” or “court below,” encouraging more accurate and respectful terminology like “Trial Court” or “Special Court.”
4. Complex Concepts Simplified
Section 14-A(1) of the SC/ST Act
This provision gives a right of appeal to the High Court against judgments, sentences, or non-interlocutory orders passed by a Special Court or Exclusive Special Court under the SC/ST Act. The High Court can examine both factual and legal issues.
Summoning Order
A summoning order is an order by which a court calls an accused person to face criminal proceedings. If the order is based on unreliable or legally insufficient material, it can be challenged.
Ocular Evidence
Ocular evidence means eyewitness evidence—what a witness claims to have personally seen or heard. In this case, the Court found that the eyewitness versions changed materially over time.
Electronic Evidence
CCTV footage is electronic evidence. It can support a prosecution case, but if it has no audio, it cannot directly prove abusive words allegedly spoken. It must be assessed along with other evidence.
Public View under the SC/ST Act
Offences such as intentional caste-based insult under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) generally require humiliation in a place within public view. The appellant argued that this ingredient was not satisfied. The Court mainly quashed the proceedings due to contradictions and unreliability in the prosecution case.
5. Conclusion
The Allahabad High Court’s decision in Mahesh Tiwari v. State of U.P. and Another underscores that criminal proceedings, including those under the SC/ST Act, must rest on a consistent and credible factual foundation.
The Court held that where the complainant and key witness repeatedly change their versions, and the charge-sheet relies on silent CCTV footage that does not support the alleged caste abuse, continuation of proceedings would be unjustified.
The judgment is also notable for reaffirming the proper scope of appellate review under Section 14-A of the SC/ST Act and for promoting respectful judicial terminology by discouraging expressions such as “court below.”