Knowledge of the victim's caste is essential for conviction under the SC/ST Act, and insufficient evidence regarding intent to murder undermines the conviction under Section 307 IPC.

Order :

In D.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension o f Sentence Application No. 1396/2024 :-

1. The appellant-applicant has preferred the application for suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentences during the pendency of the appeal and for release on bail.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant has referred to the judgment of Neeraj Sen @ Sallu passed in D.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application No.1487/223 on 04.04.2024. The order dated 04.04.2024, reads as follows:-

“1. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the application for suspension of sentences.

2. The instant application for suspension of sentences has been preferred by the appellant- applicant, who has been convicted and sentenced by the learned trial court vide judgment dated 31.08.2023 in Sessions Case No. 16/2018, as under:-

3. Mr. Dhaka, learned counsel for the appellant-applicant argued that the trial Court has committed an error of law as well as of facts in convicting the appellant-applicant for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code by completely ignoring the evidence led by the Doctor Mohd. Irfan (PW-2) who has not only given testimony in relation to the nature and size of the injury but has also deposed that the injury caused to the injured was not life threatening.

4. Learned counsel further argued that for the injury that has been inflicted upon the injured and in light of the testimony of the Doctor, who has conducted medical examination of the injured, the learned trial Court could not have come to a conclusion that the appellant-applicant had intention to murder the victim.

5. Learned counsel also argued that no evidence has been brought on record for which it could be said that the appellant- applicant intended to murder the injured for which, he had inflicted knife blows.

6. It was also argued that the trial Court has awarded 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment to the appellant-applicant for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code but has surprisingly awarded life imprisonment for the offence under Section 3(2)(V) of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989.

7. Learned counsel Mr. Dhaka further submitted that the appellant’s conviction under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 is unsustainable while punishment is harsh because neither in the FIR nor in the evidence, the prosecution has been able to prove that the appellant-applicant was aware of the fact that the injured/victim was a member of the Scheduled Caste.

8. While submitting that the appellant-applicant has remained behind the bars for more than four years, learned counsel prayed that the sentences awarded to the appellant-applicant may kindly be suspended during the pendency of the appeal.

9. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the application for suspension of sentences by contending that there are as many 26 cases of different offences pending against the present applicant which includes offence under Sections 392, 34 IPC, 380, 411 IPC, 454, 380 IPC, 436, 427 & 504 IPC, 457, 380 & 411 IPC, 332, 353 & 224 IPC, 392 IPC, 457, 380 & 411 IPC, 341, 307, 397/34 IPC & Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, 341, 323 & 34 IPC, 399, 402 IPC, 341, 323, 394, 397 & 34 IPC, 379 IPC, 457 & 380 IPC, 457 & 380 IPC, 457 & 380 IPC, 4/25 Arms Act, 379 IPC, 341, & 323 IPC, 309 IPC, 341, 323 & 324 IPC and 392 IPC. He prayed that no indulgence be granted to the appellant-applicant.

10. Mr. Love Jain, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 (complainant) has also opposed the application for suspension of sentences.

11. Heard learned counsel for the part