1. Conviction under Sections 451, 354 IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) SC/ST Act — Appeal against High Court order rejecting compounding of SC/ST Act offence under Section 320 CrPC. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 76
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
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Sameer Shrivastava, AOR Dr. Sangeeta Verma,Adv. Mr. Shivendra Dixit,Adv. Mr. Niteen Sinha,Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Mahesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Nikhilesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Athrva Kotwal, Adv. Mr. Deepak Kapoor, Adv. Ms. Devika Khanna, Adv. Mrs. V D Khanna, Adv. For M/s. VMZ Chambers, AOR
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Sameer Shrivastava, AOR Dr. Sangeeta Verma,Adv. Mr. Shivendra Dixit,Adv. Mr. Niteen Sinha,Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Mahesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Nikhilesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Athrva Kotwal, Adv. Mr. Deepak Kapoor, Adv. Ms. Devika Khanna, Adv. Mrs. V D Khanna, Adv. For M/s. VMZ Chambers, AOR
IMPORTANT POINT
Offence of outraging modesty should be committed with intention that victim belonged to Scheduled Caste category.
Headnote:
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.
Judgement Key Points
What is the legality of convicting and sentencing under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act when the act of outraging modesty is not committed with the intention that the victim belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Tribe?
What are the consequences of a joint compromise under Section 320 CrPC for offences under the SC/ST Act, specifically regarding non-compoundable offences?
What is the correct interpretation of Section 3(1)(xi) and related provisions (including Section 3(2)(v)) in determining whether a case falls within the SC/ST Act and whether the conviction can be sustained on merits?
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the conviction under Section 3(1)(xi) SC/ST Act was sustainable and whether the application for compounding under Section 320 CrPC was lawfully rejected. (Para 6 )
3. The evidence indicates the act of outraging modesty was not committed with the specific intention that the victim belonged to a Scheduled Caste. (Para 8 , 9 )
4. To attract Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act, the offence must be committed with the intention that the victim belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Tribe. (Para 8 , 10 )
5. Conviction under Section 3(1)(xi) SC/ST Act set aside and quashed — Appellant acquitted. (Para 11 , 12 )
6. What is the essential requirement to attract an offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act?
The offence of assaulting or using force to outrage the modesty of a woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe must be committed with the specific intention that the victim belongs to that category. (Para 8 , 10 )
7. Does the mere fact that a victim belongs to a Scheduled Caste suffice for conviction under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act?
No, the prosecution must prove that the offending act was committed on the ground of the victim's caste; mere membership of the victim in a Scheduled Caste is insufficient without the requisite intention. (Para 9 , 10 )
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:-
“3. Punishments for offences of atrocities.—(1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,—
(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
