J&K&L High Court Questions Delay In SC/ST Act Probe, Says 'Quality Of Evidence' Matters More Than Number Of Witnesses
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has observed that “it is not the number of witnesses that matters but the quality of the evidence”, while questioning the manner in which investigation into an FIR under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was being conducted.
Justice M.A. Chowdhary further observed that the unexplained delay in completing the investigation, nearly a year after registration of the FIR, suggests that the investigating officer may not be impartial and may be proceeding in a manner that could benefit the accused, despite the complainant party belonging to a vulnerable and underprivileged class protected by the SC/ST Act.
The Court, however, declined to quash the FIR against six petitioners, holding that the material on record did not justify interference at the investigation stage. Instead, it directed the SSP Doda and CJM Doda to supervise the investigation and ensure that it is conducted in accordance with law.
The case arose from an altercation between the petitioners and the complainant party. According to the petitioners, their side had lodged FIR on the very day of the incident against members of the complainant's family. The complainant thereafter approached the SSP Doda and under Sections 3(1)(iii), 3(1)(v) and 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The petitioners approached the High Court under Section 528 BNSS, alleging that the subsequent FIR was a counterblast to the earlier case and amounted to an abuse of the process of law.
The status report submitted before the High Court stated that the investigating officer had recorded statements of eyewitnesses which allegedly corroborated the complainant's version.
Records also revealed that the investigating officer had also examined 17 independent witnesses, including some belonging to the Scheduled Tribe category, who did not corroborate the earlier eyewitness accounts. Statements of eight persons whose signatures appeared on the original complaint also allegedly indicated that they were unaware that the complaint contained allegations attracting the SC/ST Act. The investigation was nevertheless continuing, with the police stating that statements of several witnesses were yet to be recorded.
The court took particular exception to the manner in which the investigating officer appeared to be proceeding. Justice Chowdhary observed,
“It appears from the status report that the investigating officer, who is considerably at a senior position, has some other ideas, so as to screen the alleged culprits, as otherwise, it is not the number of witnesses that matters but it is the quality of the evidence and the statement of the witnesses, who may have been present at the place of occurrence...”
The Court observed that witnesses who were actually present at the place of occurrence and those who supported the complainant's version should have been assessed on the quality and substance of their evidence rather than the investigation being prolonged merely because additional witnesses remained to be examined.
The Court also expressed concern over the fact that the FIR had been registered on August 11, 2025, but the investigation remained incomplete even by the date of the High Court's order.
“It is very surprising that the investigation of the case registered on 11.08.2025 has not been completed till now,” the Court observed, adding that the circumstances “suggests that the investigating officer may not be impartial and may have been proceeding to help the accused as against the complainant party”.
The Court particularly noted that the complainant party belonged to a vulnerable, weak and underprivileged class for whose protection Parliament had enacted the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The petitioners had also relied upon the delay of about one month between the alleged occurrence and registration of the impugned FIR. The court rejected this ground, noting that the complainant had apparently approached the local police station but, despite his efforts, the FIR was not registered there, compelling him to approach the SSP Doda.
“Therefore, the delay if any cannot be attributable to the complainant, so as to give any benefit to the accused for seeking quashing of the FIR on this ground.”, the court reasoned.
The Court also declined to accept the existence of the earlier FIR as a ground for quashing the subsequent case. Rather, it observed that the fact that the complainant and his relatives were themselves accused in an FIR arising out of the same incident lent support to the allegation that an occurrence had in fact taken place. Accordingly, the existence of the counter-case could not, at this stage, justify quashing the FIR registered under the SC/ST Act, the court opined.
While refusing to quash the FIR, the High Court considered it necessary to ensure that the investigation was conducted fairly. The Court directed,
“SSP Doda and CJM Doda are directed to supervise the investigation of the case and to ensure that investigation is carried out, in accordance with law.”
The petition was consequently dismissed for want of merit, while the supervisory directions were issued to safeguard a fair investigation.
Case Title: Abdul Gani & Ors. v. Union Territory of J&K & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 326