SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(SC) 374

JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
State of Bihar – Appellant
Versus
Anil Kumar – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Jagdish Singh Khehar, CJI.

Leave granted in the special leave petitions.

2. The question that arises for consideration, emerges from the impugned order, dated 18/20.01.2011, passed by the High Court of Patna. It pertains to the validity of the investigative process, under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the 'SCST Act').

3. In order to demonstrate the seriousness of the issue, learned counsel in Civil Appeal arising from SLP(C) No. 7317 of 2017 (filed by an accused before this Court) invited our attention to Section 3(2) of the ‘SCST Act’, which is extracted hereunder:

“3. Punishments for offences of atrocities.-

(1)…. …. ….

(2) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,-

(i) gives or fabricates false evidence intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe to be convicted of an offence which is capital by the law for the time being in force shall be punished with imprisonment for life and with fine; and if an innocent member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe














































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top