Mere Knowledge Of Victim's Caste Does Not Attract SC/ST Act Unless Offence Committed On Basis Of Caste Identity: Chhattisgarh HC Reiterates
The Chhattisgarh High Court has reiterated that merely because the accused knew the caste identity of the victim, the same cannot be made a basis for convicting him under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. It added that the prosecution will have to lead separate evidence to show that the act of violence happened because of a caste based bias against...
The observation was made by Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal & Justice Sachin Singh Rajput:
"While it can be presumed that the appellants knew that the victim belonged to scheduled tribe community as the victim and the accused persons were the residents of the same village, but mere knowledge of the same cannot be said to be the basis of conviction for the offence and it had to be proved by the prosecution by leading separate evidence..."
The Court was hearing an appeal against an order of conviction passed against the appellants Bholaram and Ramkumar, by the Special Judge.
It was alleged that the Appellants, knowing the victim, a student in Class IX, to be the member of scheduled tribe, harassed her and threatened to kill her. Based on this incident, the Police filed a chargesheet against the appellants under Sections 341, 354, 363 (alternatively Section 366) IPC and Section 3 (2)(v) of SC/ST Act.
The Appellants argued that the offence under Section 363 IPC is not made out against them since it was nowhere mentioned that the victim was below 18 years of age. So far as the alternate charge is concerned, it was argued that there is no evidence to show that the Appellants kidnapped the victim with an intent to force her into illicit intercourse and thus, the offence under Section 366 IPC is not made out.
With respect to the charge under SC/ST Act, the Appellants relied on Patan Jaman Vali v. State of Andhra Pradesh where the Supreme Court held that "separate evidence" by Prosecution to show that the accused committed the offence on the basis of the caste identity is essential.
Agreeing with the aforesaid submissions, the High Court observed,
"They (Appellants) knew that the victim was a member of Scheduled Tribe community...but mere knowledge of the same cannot be said to be the basis of conviction...it was entirely for the prosecution to establish and prove that the offence was committed just because the victim was a member of Scheduled Tribe community...There is no separate evidence led on behalf of the prosecution..."
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed in part whereas conviction under Sections 341 and 354 IPC was upheld.
Case Title : Jagsen v State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Chh) 68