The court emphasizes the necessity of clear evidence to substantiate charges under the SC & ST (PoA) Act, particularly regarding the intent to outrage dignity, affirming the principle of benefit of doubt in criminal cases.

JUDGMENT :

Sibo Sankar Mishra, J.

The sole appellant in the present case has assailed the judgment and order dated 18.06.1994 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sambalpur in T.R. Case No.27 of 1993, whereby the appellant was found guilty of the charges under Section 354 of I.P.C. read with Section 3(iii) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months for the offence under Section 354 of I.P.C. and R.I. for six months along with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo R.I. for further period of three months for the offence under Section 3(iii) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act .

2. The present appeal is pending since 1994. When the matter was taken up for hearing, none has appeared on behalf of the appellant. Therefore, this Court requested Ms. Subhashree Sen, learned counsel, who is present in Court to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae. She has readily accepted the same and after obtaining the entire record assisted the Court very effectively. This Court records appreciation for the meaningful assistance rendered by Ms. Sen, learned Amicus Curiae.

3. Heard Ms. Subhashree Sen, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Mr. Ashok Kumar Apat, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

4. The prosecution case in terse and brief is that on 05.06.1993 early morning at about 5.00 A.M., the accused-appellant has used criminal force against the victim (P.W.1) at Kusumberna Jungle near village Dakara intending to outrage her modesty. She belongs to Ganda caste and the appellant being Gouda has caused offence under SC & ST (PoA) Act. The investigation was carried out and charge-sheet was filed for the offence under Sections 354 /506 of I.P.C. read with Section 3(iii) of SC & ST (PoA) Act and charges were also framed for the same offence. Since the appellant took a stance of denial, he was put to trial.

5. The prosecution in order to bring home charges examined as many as six witnesses. Out of them, P.W.1 was the victim whereas P.W.2 was the mother of the victim, P.W.3 was the father of the victim. P.W.4 appears to be a chance witness whereas P.W.5 is the Ward Member of the village and P.W.6 is the I.O. of the case.

6. The learned trial Court after analysing the judgment arrived at the following findings:-

“13. Having held as above, it shall now be proper to conduct a scrutiny regarding the offence committed by the accused. Very precisely it can be stated that offence u/s. 506 I.P.C. has not been brought home against the accused by the prosecution. The charge on the above score is that the accused intimidated P.W.2. But P.W.2 during her evidence has not whispered a single word about such intimidation being meted out to her by the accused. She for the first time met the accused while she was present near the Bari of P.W.4. Neither P.W.2 nor P.W.4 has disclosed about such intimidation. Therefore, the charge u/s. 506 I.P.C. is bound to fail.

14. Now coming to the charge u/s. 354 I.P.C. and Sec. 3(iii) of the Act, there appears distinguishing features between the two offences. Sec. 354 I.P.C. recognizes assault or use of criminal force to women with intent to outrage her modesty whereas Sec. 3(iii) of the Act, irrespective of gender, recognizes individual member of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe against whom the offence is committed. To put it in other words, Sec. 354 I.P.C. takes note of outraging of modesty of a woman whereas Sec. 3 (iii) of the Act takes note of illegal commission against members of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe which is derogatory to human dignity. We cannot expect from the prosecution to highlight the culpable mental stat