Mehta, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The accused appellant has assailed the order dated 21st March, 2023 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No. 1088 of 2002 whereby the joint application filed by the appellant and the complainant of the case under Section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(hereinafter being referred to as ‘CrPC’) was disallowed to the extent of the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Digitally signed by Narendra Prasad Date: 2024.01.29 18:29:37 IST Reason:

Signature Not Verified Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989(hereinafter being referred to as the ‘SC/ST Act’).

3. Vide judgment dated 30th September, 2002 passed by Special Judge, Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Bilaspur, C.G. in Special Sessions Trial No. 115/2001, the accused appellant was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 451, 354 of Indian Penal Code, 1860(hereinafter being referred to as ‘IPC’) and Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of one year and fine.

4. The accused appellant challenged the said judgment by filing Criminal Appeal No. 1088/2002 in the High Court of Chhattisgarh. During the pendency of the appeal before the High Court, the accused appellant and the prosecutrix/complainant seem to have amicably settled their differences and accordingly a joint application under Section 320 CrPC, supported by affidavits of the accused appellant and the prosecutrix/complainant, came to be filed which was partly allowed by the High Court by the impugned order dated 21st March, 2023. The High Court accepted the compromise application to the extent of the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 451 IPC and acquitted the accused appellant of the said charges. However, the application was rejected qua the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act holding that the same is not compoundable and the minimum sentence provided for such offence is six months.

Accordingly, the application under Section 320 CrPC was rejected qua the offence under SC/ST Act and the simple imprisonment of one year awarded to the accused appellant on that count was reduced to six months.

5. Being aggrieved of the order dated 21st March, 2023, the accused appellant has preferred the instant appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant was released on bail vide order dated 9th June, 2023 passed by this Court.

6. The short point arising for consideration of this Court is as to whether the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act and the rejection of the application under Section 320 CrPC was justified and lawful.

7. Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act reads as below:-

“3. Punishments for offences of atrocities.—(1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,— (i)-(x)….. (xi) assaults or uses force to any woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe with intent to dishonour or outrage her modesty;

… shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine.”

8. A plain reading of the section makes it clear that the offence of outraging the modesty should be committed with the intention that the victim belonged to the Scheduled Caste category.

9. We have gone through the FIR and the sworn testimony of the prosecutrix/complainant as extracted in the judgments of the High Court as well as that of the trial Court. The case as projected in the FIR and the sworn testimony of the prosecutrix would reveal that the prosecutrix/complainant was engaged for doing household jobs in the house of the accused appellant who tried to outrage her modesty while the prosecutrix/complainant was doing the household chores. Apparently thus, even from the highest allegations of the prosecutrix, the offending act wa