To convict under SC/ST Act, evidence must show the crime was motivated by the victim's caste; mere membership is insufficient without demonstrable bias.

ORDER :

Vivek Agarwal, J.

Shri Siddharth Datt, learned counsel for the appellant instead of pressing I.A. No.7960/2025, which is third application under Section 430 (1) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellant Yagyapal Patel S/o Shri Baidhyanath Patel, prays that this appeal be heard finally.

2. Accordingly, I.A. No.7960/2025 is dismissed as not pressed and with the consent of the parties, the appeal is heard finally.

3. This criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Section 14-A of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, is filed by the convicted appellant - Yagyapal Patel being aggrieved of the judgment dated 21.06.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST), Rewa (M.P.) in Special case No.20028/2015 (State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Yagyapal Patel), wherein the appellant stands convicted for offence under Section 304 Part-II of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for brevity 'SC/ST Act') and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years (fine of Rs.100/-) and life imprisonment (fine of Rs.100/-), respectively with default stipulation to undergo additional R.I. for 2 months on each count.

4. Shri Siddharth Datt, learned counsel for the appellant raises two fold submissions, firstly, provisions of Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act will not be attracted in view of the evidence of PW-1 Maya, so-called eye witness and also in the light of the judgment of Supreme Court in Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman Vs. State of Maharashtra , (2000) 3 SCC 557 . Secondly, it is submitted that conviction under Section 304 Part-II of IPC may be maintained, but sentence of 7 years is too harsh and it may be reduced suitably. His prayer is to declare it undergone.

5. Shri Manas Mani Verma, learned Public Prosecutor supports the impugned judgement of conviction and sentence and submits that the brutality with which injuries were caused to deceased Neelesh, does not call for interference in conviction under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC. It is further submitted that the deceased was belonging to Scheduled caste community, conviction under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act cannot be faulted with.

6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, PW-1 Maya, daughter of Jiyalal stated that she had gone to pick fire woods along with Sahil, Savita, Sapna and Neelesh. They were collecting woods from a garden and after collecting woods, they were sitting under a mango tree, when Yagyapal came and threw a piece of mud on them, as a result of which, they started running, but Neelesh could not cope with them and, therefore, he was caught hold of by Yagyapal. Yagyapal had thrown him on floor and had beaten him with kicks and fists. Thereafter, Sokhal Bansal had reached the place of the incident, when she narrated the story to him and on his advice they came back to their house. In the examination-in- chief, PW-1 Maya, who claims herself to be an eye witness, neither stated that Neelesh was beaten on account of he being a member of scheduled caste community nor any casteist remarks were made by Yagyapal.

7. PW-2 Sokhal Basore is the person to whom incident was narrated by PW-1 Maya. He too has not stated anything in regard to use of casteist remarks or Yagyapal beating Neelesh on account of his caste.

8. It has also come on record that the garden where the kids including the deceased were collecting fire woods, belongs to appellant Yagyapal.

9. PW-3 Savita Basore has also corroborated what PW-1 Maya has stated.