The court established that the repeal of the Indian Penal Code does not negate the applicability of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, as provisions are to be construed under the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

JUDGMENT

This is an appeal filed under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’). The challenge in the appeal is to the order dated 14.08.2024 in Crl.M.P.No. 482 of 2024 passed by the Special Court for the trial of Offences under SC/ST(POA) Act, Nedumangad.

2. The appellant is accused No.2 in Crime No.586/2024 of Naruvamoodu Police Station. The appellant is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 115 (2), 296(b), 333, 351(2), 74 .4.

and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘the BNS ’) and Sections 3 (1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Act.

The Prosecution case:-

3. The appellant is not a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The victim/respondent No.2 is a member of a Scheduled Caste community. On 24.07.2024 at 10.15 pm, the appellant and the other accused criminally trespassed into the residence of the victim and voluntarily caused hurt to him. They abused the victim by calling his caste name within the public view. Accused No.1 caught hold of the hair of the de facto complainant’s wife and pushed her down. The appellant dragged her. Accused No.3 fisted the brother of the de facto complainant. Accused No.1 criminally intimidated the victim and other members of his family, .5.

showing an iron rod. The de facto complainant suffered mental torture and humiliation.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the victim and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned Counsel for the appellant made the following submissions:-

(1)The FIS and the other material placed before the Court do not contain any specific allegation as to the overt acts allegedly committed by the appellant, insofar as the offences under Sections 3 (1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act are concerned.

(2)The de facto complainant is a local political leader, and therefore, there is every possibility that he influenced the Police to register a false case against the appellant and the other accused.

(3)The learned Special Judge has not considered the motive behind the incident that allegedly occurred.

(4)The offence under Section 3 (2)(va) is not attracted as the offences alleged under the BNS cannot be treated as scheduled offences since the schedule appended to the Act has not been amended after the repeal of the IPC by the Act 45 of 2023.

6. The victim made the following submissions:-

The appellant and the other accused committed the offences alleged, knowing that he is a member of the Scheduled Caste. Even after the incident, the appellant and the other accused are continuously making threats to his life. The attempt of the appellant and the other accused is to pressurize him to withdraw the complaint. On 28.08.2024, he filed a complaint before the Chief Minister of Kerala, stating the threats on the part of the .7.

appellant and the other accused, pressurizing him to withdraw the complaint. On 27.07.2024, his wife filed a petition before the Kerala Women’s Commission stating that they are facing threats from the appellant and the other accused. If anticipatory bail is granted to the appellant, his life and property will be put to danger. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor made the following submissions:-

(1)The bail plea of the appellant is barred under Section 18 of the Act.

(2)The prosecution has placed sufficient materials to attract the offences alleged.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the victim has raised the allegations of threat for the first time before this Court which is evident from the .8.

impugned order, in which the learned Special Judge has not recorded any of the contentions raised by the victim.

9. The learned Public Prosecutor countered and submitted that the victim cannot be blamed for the fact that the Special Judge has not recorded his submissions. The victim had made specific mention regarding the threats to his life and property before the Special Judge also.

10. The Special Judge has recorded