Very Important Point
To attract the provisions of Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act the sine qua non is that the offence under the Indian Penal Code should have been committed against a person on the basis that such a person belongs to a SC or ST.

Headnote:(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 304, Part II—Assault without intention to cause death—Accused allegdly caused stab injuries on deceased—PW4 claimed to have followed accused and seen inflicting injuries—Defence version injuries caused during scuffle—10 wounds on body of deceased—Three incise wounds—Witnesses admitting scuffle between accused and deceased each trying to over power other—Doctor’s evidence about possibility of two incise wounds during scuffle—Trial Court convicted accused u/s 304 Part II holding he inflicted only one stab on shoulder but had no intention to cause death—High Court believing evidence of eye witnesses convicted u/s 302—Not sustainable—Trial Courts view possible—Conviction u/s 302 set aside and conviction u/s 304 Part II maintained.
       Held : It is in evidence of Deubai (PW-4) that when she followed the appellant, she saw that the appellant went from behind of her husband and stabbed him with dagger at left side shoulder and thereafter gave blows of dagger to deceased. If she had been following the appellant, she could not have seen him giving a blow to the deceased from the back. Only when the scuffle started taking place, injuries could have been inflicted and she could have seen those injuries. In the circumstances, it is reasonable to infer that only one serious injury was caused by the appellant to the deceased which is injury No. 1 while all other injuries, as opined by the doctor, could have been caused during the scuffle. This appreciation of evidence by the trial Court stands to reason. The High Court brushed aside the medical evidence to draw an inference that there was an intention on the part of the appellant to cause all the injuries. The evidence of the Doctor means that injury Nos. 4 to 10, which are mere abrasions or skin deep, could not have been caused by him but these abrasions could have been caused by falling on the ground and coming in contact with a rough surface. The probability that while injury No. 1 could have been inflicted by the appellant, injury Nos. 2 and 3 could have been caused in the course of the scuffle cannot be ruled out. In this view of the matter, we think that the view taken by the trial court is preferable to the view taken by the High Court as there is a sufficient cogency in the reasoning adopted by the trial Court. The High Court does not appear to have appreciated this aspect of the matter at all. Consequently, conviction u/s 32 was set aside and conviction u/s 304 Part II was restored. (Paras 8 & 10)
       (ii) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989—Section 3(2)(v) —Commission of offence under IPC against Scheduled Caste—Conviction for—Condition precedent to attract Section 3(2)(v)—Offence under IPC should have been committed against a person on basis that such a person belongs to Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe.
       Where the accused caused stab injuries on the victim who happend to be a scheduled caste and the victim died and the trial Court while convicting the accused u/s 304 Part II, IPC also convicted him u/s 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
       Held : To attract the provisions of Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, the sine qua non is that the victim should be a person who belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and that the offence under the Indian Penal Code is committed against him on the basis that such a person belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. In the absence of such ingredients, no offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act arises. In the present case, there is no evidence at all to the effect that the appellant committed the offence alleged against him on the ground that the deceased is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. Both the trial Court and the High Court missed the essence of this aspect. In these circumstances, the conviction under the aforesaid provision by the trial court as well as by the High Court ought to be set aside. (Para 9)
       Result : Appeals allowed.

Judgment

Rajendra Babu, J.—The appellant on being charged by the Sessions Judge, Buldhana of having caused grievous injuries to one Saoji Gamaji Jadhav (the deceased) with Jambiya (Knife) intentionally and knowingly that they would result in his death and thus committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. He was also charged under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’]. The appellant stood convicted of the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years. He was further convicted of the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. Both the State and the appellant filed separate appeals to the High Court. The High Court, on re-examination of the evidence on record, allowed the appeal filed by the State and convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffere rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one month while maintaining the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act. Both the sentences are stated to run concurrently. The appeal filed by the appellant stood dismissed. Hence this appeal against the common order made by the High Court in the said two appeals.

2. The prosecution case as unfolded by the witnesses is that between 7 and 8 p.m. on 25.8.92 Saoji Gamaji Jadhav who belongs to the scheduled caste was done away to death. It is stated that the appellant and the deceased are residents of Nandra Koli village situate 7 kilometres from Buldana. On the fateful day the deceased returned to the house at dusk and after some time left the house informing his wife that he would be going out for some time and would return soon thereafter. After about half an hour, the deceased left his home, the appellant came to the house of the deceased and enquired from Deubai (PW-4), wife of deceased Saoji Gamaji Jadhav. She found that he was having a Jambiya. On coming to know from her that her husband had gone out of the house, the appellant started running through the lane. As the appellant was seen by Deubai with the Jambiya, she got suspicious, and followed him and near the hospital of Dr. Kalwaghe, she saw the appellant stabbing the deceased. She stated that the appellant after giving two or three blows with the Jambiya and deceased fell on the ground ran away. When he left the place, she found that the deceased was having bleeding injuries and she tried to tie up a cloth around the wound but in the meanwhile he succumbed to the injuries. Thereafter she with the help of the police patil went to the Police Station. Buldana and lodged a complaint when the PSI, Shri Oval visited the spot and after recording her complaint and registering a case coducted inquest. When the appellant was in the custody, he produced Jambiya. After completing the investigation a charge-sheet was laid for the offence stated earlier before the Jurisdictional Magistrate who committed the same to the Court of Sessions. On charges being framed, the appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and denied having caused any injuries to the deceased or committed murder. In the course of evidence, the Defence suggested to the prosecution that the deceased was under the influence of alcohol and he himself had a dagger, that a scuffle took place when he attacked the appellant, as a result of which he died out of injuries caused by himself, that the appellant had not caused and injury and that he tried to save himself.

3. There was no dispute that the deceased met with homicidal death and this fact is amply established by the medical evidence on record. There were as many as 10 inju

Click Here to Read the rest of this document