Husband Would Know Wife's Caste Identity, Presumption Under Section 8 SC/ST Act Applies: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has held that the presumption under Section 8 of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act regarding knowledge of accused about victim's caste or tribal identity is applicable, if the victim is the wife of the accused. Section 8(c) says there is a presumption that the accused would be aware of the victim's caste or tribal identity if they were previously acquainted with...
The Kerala High Court has held that the presumption under Section 8 of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act regarding knowledge of accused about victim's caste or tribal identity is applicable, if the victim is the wife of the accused.
Section 8(c) says there is a presumption that the accused would be aware of the victim's caste or tribal identity if they were previously acquainted with the victim.
“The victim herein is none other than the wife of the appellant...Hence, the presumption under Section 8 could very well be drawn” observed Justice AK Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Kauser Edappagath.
The appellant-husband is accused of assaulting his wife. The division bench was hearing his appeal challenging the trial court's order of conviction under Sections 326 (grievous hurt), 307 (attempt to murder), 341 (wrongful restraint) read with Section 3(2)(v) (punishment for offences against member of SC/ST community) of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act.
The counsel for the appellant argued that the investigation did not comply with the mandatory requirements under Section 9 of the SC/ST Act requiring investigation to be done by an officer of the rank of deputy superintendent of police or higher. They added that there was also a delay in filing the FIR and that the doctor's testimony was not produced along with the final report, the appellant was kept in the dark as regards the nature of injury that could have justified the charge under Sections 326 and 307 IPC read with Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act. As such, the counsel submitted that the investigation and trial against the accused would be vitiated.
The counsel also pointed out that the prosecution failed to establish that the injury caused to the victim was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and as such, a charge under Section 307 was not justified.
The court reasoned that there was no breach of statutory provisions of Section 9 as the deputy superintendent of police took over the investigation immediately after the charges under SC/ST (PoA) Act had been incorporated and as such, the investigation adhered to the provisions of the statute.
“Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act does not constitute any substantive offence and an accused cannot be convicted and sentenced for an offence under Section 3(2)(v) simplicitor. Section 3(2)(v) is only an enabling provision for awarding sentence for the commission of particular types of offences under the IPC” said the court.
“Even otherwise, we are of the view that the mandate of Rule 7 of the SC/ST (PoA) Rules applies only in cases where the offence alleged to be committed is one defined under the SC/ST (PoA) Act itself. In cases where Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act is invoked there is no offence under the SC/ST (PoA) Act that is alleged to be committed. Rather, the provisions of Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act itself make it clear that its application is only under circumstances where specified offences under the IPC are committed, with the knowledge that the person against whom it is committed is a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe” added the court.
Regarding the allegation that the accused was kept in the dark concerning charges under Section 326 and 307, the court pointed out that the relevant documents were produced by the prosecution after obtaining permission from the trial court as such, there was no prejudice caused through the delayed production of documents, especially given that the accused was given an opportunity to cross examine the doctor who provided the testimony.
The court also rejected the contention regarding the delay in filing the FIR, attributing it to the fact that the victim was at the hospital following the incident. Regarding the challenge against Section 307, the court stated that it is sufficient if the accused exhibited the intent coupled with an overt act.
“We find that it is not necessary that a bodily injury sufficient, under normal circumstances, to cause death should have been inflicted in order to attract the offence under Section 307 of the IPC” concluded the court.
Counsel for Petitioner: Advocate Deepa MM
Counsel for Respondent: Advocate Ambika Devi, Special Public Prosecutor
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 195
Case Title: Rajachandrasekharan @ Babu v. State of Kerala
Case Number: Crl A. No. 859 of 2018