The central legal point established in the judgment is that the conviction under the SC/ST Act must be supported by evidence of the caste-based nature of the crime, and discrepancies in evidence can impact the justification of the conviction.

JUDGMENT

1. The instant application for suspension of sentences under Section 389 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by appellant-applicant Rameshwar @ Dinesh @ Ramesh S/o Shri Mohan Lal who has been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 06.11.2017 passed by Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases, District Bhilwara in Sessions Case No. 56/2017:

Offence Under Section

Imprisonment

Fine

Sentence in default of fine

363 IPC

7 years' RI

 Rs. 1,000/-

6 months' SI

366A IPC

10 years' RI

Rs. 1,000/-

6 months' SI

376 IPC R.W.S. 3/4 of POCSO Act

10 years' RI

Rs. 1,000/-

6 months' SI

3(1) (xii) of the SC/ST Act

5 years' RI

Rs. 1,000/-

6 months' SI

3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act

Life imprisonment

Rs. 1,000/-

6 months' SI

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. Learned Public Prosecutor has filed reply to the application for suspension of sentences.

3. Learned counsel Shri Charan representing the appellant submitted that the conviction of the appellant for the offences under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to him on this count is illegal because prosecution has not come out with the case that the appellant committed the crime with the victim Mst. 'M' for the reason that she belonged to the Scheduled Caste community. He submitted that the amendment in the SC/ST Act whereby, the offence committed even without knowledge or intention that the victim belongs to such community has been made punishable was introduced w.e.f. 01.01.2016 whereas the offence was committed on 04.06.2015 and thus, conviction of the appellant as recorded by the trial court for the offence under Section 3(1)(xii) read with Section 3(2)(v) is totally unjustified. He further submitted that the prosecution has failed to lead proper evidence to prove the age of the victim. She stayed with the accused for almost two and half months without making any protest whatsoever and thus, the relations between the accused and the victim were purely consensual in nature. He contended that the accused is in custody from 22.08.2015. Hearing of the appeal is likely to consume time. With these submissions, learned counsel Shri Charan implored the Court to accept the instant application for suspension of sentences and direct enlargement of the appellant on bail during pendency of the appeal.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellant's counsel. However, he too is not in a position to dispute the fact that there is no allegation of the prosecution that the appellant committed the alleged sexual assault upon the victim on the ground that she belonged to the Scheduled Caste community. Thus, there is merit in the contention of Shri Charan that conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 3 of the SC/ST Act cannot be sustained as the offence was committed prior to the amendment dated 01.01.2016. The appellant was arrested on 22.08.2015. There are some discrepancies regarding the date of birth of the victim in the evidence led by the prosecution. The appellant was a young boy of about 19 years when the offence took place. He has remained behind the bars for the last nearly six and half years. Hearing of the appeal is unlikely in the near future.

5. Accordingly, the instant application for suspension of sentences filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the sentences passed by Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases, District Bhilwara vide judgment dated 06.11.2017 in Sessions Case No. 56/2017 against the appellant-applicant Rameshwar @ Dinesh @ Ramesh S/o Shri Mohan Lal shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and he shall be released on bail subject to the condition that he shall furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance in this court on 23.03.2022 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditi