Can't Convict Accused U/S 3 (2) (v) SC/ST Act Sans Evidence That Offence Was Committed On Ground Of Victim's Caste: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court has observed that to prosecute a person for an offence committed under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, there must be evidence to show that the accused committed on the ground that such person/victim is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe.

It may be noted that Section 3(2)(v) penalizes a person, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, who commits any offence under the Indian Penal Code punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more against a person or property on the ground that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member, shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine;

Essentially, the Bench of Justice Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Justice Ajai Tyagi was dealing with a criminal appeal filed by one Pintu Gupta challenging the judgment and order dated passed by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Jaunpur convicting accused-appellant, Pintu Gupta, under Sections 326 of IPC and Section 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST Act, 1989.

The accused-appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of 10 years with a fine of Rs. 25,000/- under Section 326 of I.P.C. and was sentenced to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST Act. 

Arguments advanced

The accused contended that the FIR nowhere stated that the injured belonged to a particular community and that no documentary evidence regarding the victim's caste was produced either before Investigating Officer or Sessions Court.

Essentially, the accused submitted that provisions of Section 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST Act are not made out, and the accused should be acquitted as there is no mention either in F.I.R. or testimony that the incident occurred because the injured belonged to Scheduled Caste.

It was further argued that Section 326 of IPC was not made out as injuries are not such which would fall within the purview of Section 326 of IPC. It was further submitted that even if it is proved that the offence under Section 326IPC is made out, the punishment is on the higher side which requires to be modified.

Court's observations 

At the outset, the Court noted that in the FIR no allegation had been made that the offence was committed on the ground that the injured belonged to a particular community, falling in the term 'Scheduled Castes' or 'Scheduled Tribes' so as to attract the provision of Section 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST Act.

Further, the Court also took into account that documentary evidence showing what caste the offender and the injured belong to, has not been brought on record.

"For attracting the provisions of Section 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST Act, there should be corroboration by way of documentary evidence to prove that the injured, on whom the act is committed, belongs to 'Scheduled Castes' or 'Scheduled Tribes'," the Court remarked.

However, the Court added that even if it is believed that the injured belongs to the community which he states, then also can it be said that the offence has been committed as he belongs to a particular community?

To answer the query, the Court referred to the case of Dharmendra vs. State of U.P., 2011 Cri LJ 204 (All), wherein the Allahabad High Court had held that there was no evidence on record to show that incident was caused by the accused on the ground that victim belonged to Scheduled Caste and therefore, the fact that victim belonged to Scheduled Caste by itself was not sufficient ground to bring the case within the purview of Section 3 (2) (v) of Act.

"In the case at hand, no independent witness have been examined who would depose that the accused committed the offence on the ground that injured belonged to a community covered under SC/ST Act. This omission proves fatal for the prosecution in such a vital matter where punishment is for life imprisonment," the Court remarked as it set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 3 (2) (v) of the accused-appellant.

However, regarding the charge under Section 326 IPC [Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means], the Court noted that in the instant case, it had come on record that a glass bottle filled with acid was used as a weapon of offence and/or substance which was deleterious to the human body and, therefore, the Court held that ingredients of Section 326 of IPC are made out.

However, taking into account the reformative theory of punishment, the Court reduced the sentence to 9 years' incarceration (from 10 years of imprisonment) and fine to Rs.2000/- for a charge under Section 326 IPC.

Case title - Pintu Gupta v. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4083 of 2017]

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 345

Click Here To Read/Download Order