Lack of evidence to establish requisite knowledge under the SC / ST (POA) Act results in the necessity for sentence suspension.

1. Admit.
Learned Public Prosecutor takes notice for the respondents.
Crl.M.A. No. 1 of 2025
This application under S.430 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 , seeking suspension of sentence, has been filed by the sole accused in S.C. No.408/2018 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court - I, Pathanamthitta, who stands convicted for offences punishable under S.452, S.326 of the IPC and S.3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (POA) Act.

2. The prosecution case in brief is as follows.
The accused, who belongs to the Christian community, on 18.03.2016 at about 10:30 a.m., asked PW3, the younger brother of the injured, to purchase beedi from a pan shop. PW1, the mother of PW3, did not permit him to do so. Infuriated by this, the accused trespassed into the house of PW1 and attempted to hack her on the neck using a chopper. When PW2, her daughter, intervened to protect her mother, the blow fell on PW2's left wrist and right palm, resulting in a fracture of her left ulna. Hence, the accused is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under S.452, S.326 of the IPC and S.3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (POA) Act.

3. We heard Sri. V. Sethunath, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, as well as Smt. Sheeba Thomas, the learned Public Prosecutor and Smt. Isamol Baby, the learned counsel appearing for the victim.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the trial court erred in appreciating the evidence and erroneously arrived at a finding of guilt in the absence of convincing material. It is argued that the offence under S.3(2)(v) of the SC / ST (POA) Act is not attracted as there is no evidence to show that the accused knew that the injured belonged to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. According to the learned counsel, despite the absence of the essential ingredients under S.3(2)(v), the trial court convicted the accused and imposed a sentence of life imprisonment. It is further contended that if the conviction under S.3(2)(v) is found unsustainable, the remaining sentences for which only term sentences of five years or less are imposed are liable to be suspended. It is also submitted that there is a reasonable possibility of acquittal and, therefore, suspension of sentence is warranted in the interest of justice.

5. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application, contending that there is no scope for interference with the impugned judgment rendered against the accused. According to the Public Prosecutor, this is a case in which the injured's testimony, coupled with other eyewitness accounts and supporting medical evidence, convincingly establishes the guilt of the accused. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the grave nature of the offence committed by the accused cannot be overlooked while considering the present application. The learned counsel appearing for the victim also vehemently opposed the application, emphasising the seriousness of the offence for which the accused has been found guilty.

6. We have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the materials produced.

7. As already stated, the present petition seeking suspension of sentence has been filed by the sole accused in S.C. No. 408/2018 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court - I, Pathanamthitta. In the said case, he was convicted for offences punishable under S.452, S.326 of the IPC and S.3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (POA) Act. For the offence punishable under S.452 of the , the accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-. In default of payment o