SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Dashrath Sahu - Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No(S). 487 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s). 6367 of 2023)
Decided on : 29-01-2024
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Section 3(1)(xi) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 451 and 354 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 320 – House trespass and attempt to outrage modesty of domestic help – High Court accepted compromise application to the extent of offences punishable under Sections 354 and 451 IPC and acquitted accused appellant of said charges – However, application was rejected qua offence punishable under Section 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST Act holding that same is not compoundable and minimum sentence provided for such offence is six months – Offence of outraging modesty should be committed with intention that victim belonged to Scheduled Caste category – Even from highest allegations of prosecutrix, offending act was not committed by accused with intention that he was doing so upon a person belonging to Scheduled Caste – Conviction of accused appellant for offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST Act was otherwise also not sustainable on merits – Conviction and sentence set aside and appellant acquitted. (Paras 4, 8, 9 and 11)
Facts of the case:
Accused appellant has assailed the order dated 21st March, 2023 passed by High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No. 1088 of 2002 whereby joint application filed by the appellant and complainant of case under Section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was disallowed to the extent of offence punishable under Section 3(1)(xi) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Short point arising for consideration of this Court is as to whether the conviction of appellant for offence punishable under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act and the rejection of the application under Section 320 Cr.P.C. was justified and lawful.
Findings of Court:
Appellant is acquitted of charge under Section 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST Act. Appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are discharged.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Mehta, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The accused appellant has assailed the order dated 21st March, 2023 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No. 1088 of 2002 whereby the joint application filed by the appellant and the complainant of the case under Section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(hereinafter being referred to as ‘CrPC’) was disallowed to the extent of the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989(hereinafter being referred to as the ‘SC/ST Act’).
3. Vide judgment dated 30th September, 2002 passed by Special Judge, Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Bilaspur, C.G. in Special Sessions Trial No. 115/2001, the accused appellant was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 451, 354 of Indian Penal Code, 1860(hereinafter being referred to as ‘IPC’) and Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of one year and fine.
4. The accused appellant challenged the said judgment by filing Criminal Appeal No. 1088/2002 in the High Court of Chhattisgarh. During the pendency of the appeal before the High Court, the accused appellant and the prosecutrix/complainant seem to have amicably settled their differences and accordingly a joint application under Section 320 CrPC, supported by affidavits of the accused appellant and the prosecutrix/complainant, came to be filed which was partly allowed by the High Court by the impugned order dated 21st March, 2023. The High Court accepted the compromise application to the extent of the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 451 IPC and acquitted the accused appellant of the said charges. However, the application was rejected qua the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act holding that the same is not compoundable and the minimum sentence provided for such offence is six months. Accordingly, the application under Section 320 CrPC was rejected qua the offence under SC/ST Act and the simple imprisonment of one year awarded to the accused appellant on that count was reduced to six months.
5. Being aggrieved of the order dated 21st March, 2023, the accused appellant has preferred the instant appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant was released on bail vide order dated 9th June, 2023 passed by this Court.
6. The short point arising for consideration of this Court is as to whether the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act and the rejection of the application under Section 320 CrPC was justified and lawful.
7. Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act reads as below:-
(i)-(x)…..
(xi) assaults or uses force to any woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe with intent to dishonour or outrage her modesty;
…
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine.”
8. A plain reading of the section makes it clear that the offence of outraging the modesty should be committed with the intention that the victim belonged to the Scheduled Caste category.
9. We have gone through the FIR and the sworn testimony of the prosecutrix/complainant as extracted in the judgments of the High Court as well as that of the trial Court. The case as projected in the FIR and the sworn testimony of the prosecutrix would reveal that the prosecutrix/complainant was engaged for doing household jobs in the house of the accused appellant who tried to outrage her modesty while the prosecutrix/complainant was doing the household chores. Apparently thus, even from the highest allegations of the prosecutrix, the offending act was not committed by the accused with the intention that he was doing so upon a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste. Thi
Offence of outraging modesty should be committed with intention that victim belonged to Scheduled Caste category.
Procedural violations in criminal investigations can lead to the reversal of convictions under special laws protecting marginalized communities.
To convict under Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Act, evidence must show the act was committed with the intention of targeting the victim's caste.
Conviction under SC/ST Act requires evidence of intent related to caste, which was lacking; guilty of IPC Section 354 for outraging modesty.
The court clarified the requirements for conviction under the SCST Act versus IPC Section 354, emphasizing necessary evidence of intent tied to caste status for SCST convictions.
Prosecution must establish the accused is not a member of SC/ST to prove an offence under the SC/ST Act; absence of such evidence voids the conviction under the Act.
For conviction under the SC/ST Act, prosecution must prove both caste identity and an intent to harm due to that identity; lack of such proof invalidates the charge.
At stage of framing of charges, Court is not required to undertake meticulous evaluation of evidence and even grave suspicion is sufficient to frame charge – Nevertheless, if necessary ingredients of....
The exemplification of evidential requirements under the SCST Act highlights that mere membership to a scheduled category does not automatically substantiate charges without compelling evidence.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.