Back
SANJAY S. AGRAWAL
Jogesh @ Yogesh Kumar, son of Shri Trilochan – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/accused under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.02.2005 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC & ST Act), Bastar Place-Jagdalpur in Sessions Trial No.300/2004, whereby, the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (herein after referred to as the “Act, 1989”) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, has to undergo rigorous imprisonment for additional 2 months.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that in the intervening night of 26th and 27th of September, 2004, the appellant allegedly caught hold of the prosecutrix, who belongs to Scheduled Tribes Community, with an intention to outrage her modesty. On the basis of the report lodged by the prosecutrix with the Police Station SC & ST, Jagdalpur, an offence punishable under Section 3 (1)(xi) of the Act, 1989 was registered
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 evidence must establish that the accused's actions were solely motivated by the victim's scheduled tribe status to sustain a conviction under the special provision.
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.
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.
Offence of outraging modesty should be committed with intention that victim belonged to Scheduled Caste category.
Conviction under special provisions requires definitive evidence of caste status, which was lacking; however, guilt under general statutes was established.
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 provide valid documentary evidence to prove caste under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act; mere oral testimony is insufficient.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
