Back
B. R. GAVAI, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, SANDEEP MEHTA
Dashrath Sahu – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
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 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 b
Offence of outraging modesty should be committed with intention that victim belonged to Scheduled Caste category.
Procedural violations in criminal investigations can lead to the reversal of convictions under special laws protecting marginalized communities.
To convict under Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Act, evidence must show the act was committed with the intention of targeting the victim's caste.
Conviction under SC/ST Act requires evidence of intent related to caste, which was lacking; guilty of IPC Section 354 for outraging modesty.
The court clarified the requirements for conviction under the SCST Act versus IPC Section 354, emphasizing necessary evidence of intent tied to caste status for SCST convictions.
Prosecution must establish the accused is not a member of SC/ST to prove an offence under the SC/ST Act; absence of such evidence voids the conviction under the Act.
For conviction under the SC/ST Act, prosecution must prove both caste identity and an intent to harm due to that identity; lack of such proof invalidates the charge.
At stage of framing of charges, Court is not required to undertake meticulous evaluation of evidence and even grave suspicion is sufficient to frame charge – Nevertheless, if necessary ingredients of....
The exemplification of evidential requirements under the SCST Act highlights that mere membership to a scheduled category does not automatically substantiate charges without compelling evidence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
