Substantially high standard of proof is required to establish that a juvenile had committed an offence under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 with the knowledge that the victim was a member of the scheduled caste.

ORDER :

This Crl.M.C. has been filed seeking to quash all further proceedings in C.C.No.171 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III (Juvenile Justice Board) Ernakulam. The allegation against the petitioner, who was a minor at the time of the alleged commission of offence, is that she allegedly interfered in an altercation that took place between her father and the husband of the defacto complainant (belonging to a Scheduled Caste community) and on the instigation of her father, she attacked the defacto complainant by hitting the defacto complainant on her neck. It is alleged that the petitioner is an expert in karate and she had attacked the defacto complainant by chopping her neck using her hands and thereby she committed the offences alleged against her.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the offences alleged against the petitioner are those under Sections 341, 323 and 506(i) read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), (s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It is submitted that even if the entire allegations in the F.I.S. of the defacto complainant are taken to be true, the offences under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 will not be attracted. It is submitted that apart from the allegation that the petitioner had attacked the defacto complainant as above, there is no other allegation against the petitioner to attract the offences under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It is further submitted that since the petitioner was a juvenile, it cannot be said that the petitioner had attacked the defacto complainant knowing that she was a member of one of the scheduled caste in order to attract the offences under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

3. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the contentions now taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner are matters for evidence. It is submitted that there is no ground made out for interference of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. It is submitted that whether the petitioner committed the offences with the knowledge that the defacto complainant was a member of one of the Scheduled Caste or not is a matter to be ascertained at the trial. It is submitted that there is no ground made out for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant would also support the contentions stated by the learned Public Prosecutor. It is submitted that the father of the petitioner had clearly abused the defacto complainant and her husband by calling them by caste names. It is submitted that the attack by the petitioner was immediately thereafter and at the instigation of her father. It is submitted that, in such circumstances, it would be difficult to hold that she was not aware of the consequences of her action and that she was not aware of the fact that the petitioner belongs to a scheduled caste community.

5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, I am of the view that the proceedings against the petitioner under the provisions of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 can be quashed. A reading of the F.I.S. of the defacto complainant shows that the allegations in so far as they relate to the petitioner are as follows :

There is nothing in Annexure A1 complaint to indicate that the petitioner had committed the offences alleged against her with the knowledge that the defacto complainant was a member of a scheduled caste. I cannot also over look the fact that the petitioner was a juvenile at the time of commission of the alleged offence. It will require substantially high standard of proof to establish that a juvenile had committed an offence under the provisions of the Scheduled Cas