For Conviction Under SC/ST Act, Offence Of Outraging Woman's Modesty Must Be Committed On Ground Of Caste: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 cannot be sustained if the act of outraging the modesty of a woman was not committed on the ground of caste.

"The language of Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act provides that the offence must be committed upon a person belonging to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes with the intention that it was being done on the ground of caste," the Court said.

The Section reads as : Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe 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.

Setting aside the concurring findings of the High Court and the Trial Court, the Bench of Justices B.R. Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and Sandeep Mehta observed :

“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.”

Reference was made to Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman Vs. State of Maharashtra 2000(3) SCC 557.

In the instant case, the allegation was that 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.

Perusing the case record, the Court observed, "even from the highest allegations of the prosecutrix, the offending act was not committed by the accused with the intention that he was doing so upon a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste.”

To give a brief factual background, the accused- appellant was convicted by the trial court for offences punishable under Sections 451 (House-trespass in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment), 354 (Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter being referred to as 'IPC') and Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act.

Challenging the conviction, the accused preferred an appeal before the High Court, where the High Court upheld the conviction under the SC & ST Act and discharged the accused for offence committed under IPC. The High Court upheld the conviction under the SC & ST Act on the note that the offence committed by the accused under the Act is not compoundable.

It is against the impugned judgment of the High Court convicting accused under the SC & ST Act that the accused preferred a criminal appeal before the Supreme Court.

“The conviction of the accused appellant for the offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act was otherwise also not sustainable on merits.”, the court noted while setting aside the conviction under the SC/ST Act.

The appellant is acquitted of the charge under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act.

Case Details: DASHRATH SAHU VERSUS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 66

Click here to read the judgment