For a charge under Section 3(2)(v)(va) of the SC/ST Act to be valid, there must be evidence that the accused knew the victim belonged to a Scheduled Caste or Tribe.

Order :

1.The instant criminal appeal under Section 14A(1) of SC/ST Act has been filed by the appellants challenging the order dated 20.06.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Udaipur in Special Sessions Case No.52/2024 only to the extent of framing of charge for offence under Section 3(2)(v)(va) of SC/ST Act.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 25.01.2024, complainant/respondent No.2 submitted a written report to the Police alleging that on 24.01.2024, the accused persons including the appellants assaulted his husband Tej Singh and one Sonu Ganchi with deadly weapon. On the basis of the said report, Police registered the FIR and started investigation. On completion of investigation, Police filed charge-sheet against the appellants before the trial court for offences under Sections 341, 302, 34, 427 IPC and Section 3(2)(v)/3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act. The trial Judge, vide order dated 20.06.2024, directed to frame charges against the appellants for the offences under Section 341, 427/34, 302/34 IPC and Section 3(2)(v)(va) of SC/ST Act. Hence, this appeal to the extent of framing of charge under SC/ST Act.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that ingredients of Section 3(2)(v)(va) of SC/ST Act are not prima facie made out against the appellants from the allegations of the prosecution. Counsel submits that there should be specific allegation for making out offence under Section 3(2)(v)(va) of SC/ST Act. In the present case, there is not an iota of evidence which suggests that the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v)(va) of SC/ST is made out against the appellants. Counsel submits that the appellants were not having knowledge that one of the deceased namely Sunil @ Sonu Gancha belongs to SC/ST community. Thus, the impugned order to the extent of framing charge under SC/ST Act is per se illegal and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside to that extent. In support of his contention, counsel has cited the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Shashikant Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., Cr. Appeal arising out of SLP (Cr.) No.5323/2023, decided on 01.12.2023 Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned order of framing charge and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

4. Despite service, no one appeared on behalf of respondent No.2.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned order as well as materiel available on record.

6. Section 3(2)(v)(va) of SC/ST Act is reproduced here for ready reference :

Section 3 :- Punishments for offences of atrocities :-

(2)—Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe :-

(v) commits any offence under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more against a person or property knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member, shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine;

(va) commits any offence specified in the Schedule, against a person or property, knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member, shall be punishable with such punishment as specified under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) for such offences and shall also be liable to fine;

7. From a bare perusal of the provision, it is crystal clear that for the above offence to be constituted, there must be an allegation that the accused not being a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe committed an offence under the IPC punishable for a term of 10 years or more against a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe knowing that such person belongs to such ‘community’.

8. From perusal of the material collected during investigation, it is manifest that the incident had occurred due to an old property dispute between the family of accused a