For the offence under Section 3(1) (x) of the SC/ST Act, the prosecution is required to establish that the accused committed the crime on a person of SC/ST for the reason that such person belonged to such community or tribe.

JUDGMENT

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J —The present appeal has been filed to assail the impugned judgment dated 12.3.1993 whereby the court of Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Baran convicted the accused appellant Ram Charan son of Mangi Lal for the offences under Section 354 IPC and Section 3(1) (x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter called as 'SC/ST Act'.

2. Having convicted the appellant for the above said offences, the trial Judge vide a separate order of even date, sentenced the appellant as under:-

U/s. 354 IPC read with Section 3(1) (x) of SC/ST Act- to undergo six months SI and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-, in default thereof to undergo additional one months imprisonment.

3. In the present case, criminal proceedings were set into motion on the basis of written report (Exhibit-P/1) submitted by Dayachand (P.W.2) , elder brother of husband of the prosecutrix (P.W.1-name withheld to protect her identity) . In written report (Exhibit-P/1) , the complainant Dayachand (P.W.2) stated that the prosecutrix was going to the flour mill for grinding of the grain when on the way accused caught hold of her.

4. The prosecutrix (P.W.1) in the court deposed that she had left the house for getting the grain grinded from the flour mill. She was returning from the flour mill when accused came, took her in grips and pressed her breasts. On the noise raised, Sita Ram (P.W.3) , younger brother of husband of prosecutrix was attracted to the spot. On the noise raised accused ran away from the spot.

5. In the evidence, nowhere witness has stated that the accused had used derogatory words regarding the caste of the prosecutrix.

6. Merely because accused made an attempt to outrage the modesty of a woman who belong to Scheduled Caste community, it cannot be said that the said offence was done intentionally to demean member of a Scheduled Caste community. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that provisions of Section 3(1) (x) of SC/ST Act are not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case.

7. I find merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. The argument raised is no longer res integra. A Division Bench of this Court, to which I was party, in Ramkaran vs. State of Rajasthan, D.B. Cr. Appeal No. 945/2004 decided on 25.11.2014, noticing the contentions of the counsel, observed as under:-

"14. Mr. Mehla, the learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently urged that the application of offence under Section 3(2) (v) of 'the Act' is not attracted. The thrust argument of Mr. Mehla is while committing offence of rape, accused may intend to satisfy his lust, but there is no evidence or assertion by the witness that accused intended to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or the offence of rape was committed only on the ground that the prosecutrix belonged to Scheduled Caste community.

15. The argument raised by Mr. Mehla is not new to this Court. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Manohar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, 2000 2 RCC 894, in similar circumstances, held as under:-

"10.The doctor opined that from the external injuries, the possibility of rape being committed, cannot be denied. The doctor also seized the 'ghaghra' of the prosecutrix on which spots of semen were detected. He further stated that the accused Manohar Singh was also examined on 19.12.1996. He was found fit for indulging in sexual intercourse. The prosecution has produced the FSL report dated 2.9.1997, which shows that human semen was found on the 'ghaghra'. Thus, on careful consideration, we find the testimony of P.W.8 Mst. Ramila as trustworthy. The learned Judge has rightly held the accused appellant guilty of rape.

11.The next question, which arises for consideration is whether the conviction of the appellant under Sec.3(2) (v) of the Act is justified and legal?

12.We have, recently in a case of Pappu Khan vs. State of Rajasthan, "D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 722/98 decided on 2.9.199