LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an offense under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 requires the act to be committed with the specific intention that the victim belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.
CASE TYPE: Criminal Law
Case Name: Dashrath Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Judgment Date: January 29, 2024
Date of the Judgment: January 29, 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 68
Judges: B.R. Gavai, J., Prashant Kumar Mishra, J., Sandeep Mehta, J.
Can a person be convicted under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) if the act of outraging modesty was not specifically done because the victim belonged to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a criminal appeal. The Court examined whether the intention of the accused to commit the offense was linked to the victim’s caste identity. The bench, consisting of Justices B.R. Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra, and Sandeep Mehta, delivered the judgment, with Justice Mehta authoring the opinion.
Case Background
The case involves an appeal by Dashrath Sahu against the State of Chhattisgarh. The appellant was initially convicted by the Special Judge, Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Bilaspur, C.G., for offenses under Sections 451 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act. The charges stemmed from an incident where the appellant allegedly outraged the modesty of the complainant, who was working in his house.
The High Court of Chhattisgarh partly allowed the appeal, acquitting the appellant of the IPC offenses based on a compromise between the parties. However, the High Court upheld the conviction under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act, reducing the sentence from one year to six months. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court challenging the conviction under the SC/ST Act.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 30th September, 2002 | Special Judge, Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Bilaspur, C.G. convicted the accused appellant for offences under Sections 451, 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act. |
| 2002 | The accused appellant filed Criminal Appeal No. 1088/2002 in the High Court of Chhattisgarh. |
| 21st March, 2023 | The High Court partly allowed the application under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, acquitting the accused of offences under Sections 354 and 451 of the IPC, but rejected the application regarding the offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act. |
| 9th June, 2023 | The appellant was released on bail by the Supreme Court. |
| 29th January, 2024 | The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act. |
Course of Proceedings
The Special Judge, Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Bilaspur, C.G., convicted the appellant for offenses under Sections 451 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act. The appellant then filed a criminal appeal before the High Court of Chhattisgarh. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant and the complainant reached an amicable settlement and filed a joint application under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) for compounding the offenses. The High Court allowed the application partly, acquitting the appellant of the offenses under Sections 354 and 451 of the IPC, but rejected it concerning the offense under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act. The High Court reasoned that this offense was non-compoundable and reduced the sentence to six months.
Legal Framework
The core legal provision in question is Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act, which states:
“3. Punishments for offences of atrocities .—(1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, — (i)-(x)….. (xi) 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. ”
The Supreme Court highlighted that a key element of this section is that the act of outraging modesty must be committed with the intention that the victim belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.
Arguments
The primary argument of the appellant was that the offense under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act was not made out as the act of outraging modesty was not committed with the intention that the victim belonged to a Scheduled Caste. The appellant contended that the High Court erred in upholding the conviction under the SC/ST Act.
The State, on the other hand, argued that the conviction under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act was justified as the prosecutrix belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the appellant had outraged her modesty.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s Submission |
|
| State’s Submission |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:
✓ Whether the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act and the rejection of the application under Section 320 CrPC was justified and lawful.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court:
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether the conviction under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act was justified? | The Court held that the conviction was not sustainable as the act was not committed with the intention that the victim belonged to a Scheduled Caste. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court relied on the following case:
✓ Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman vs. State of Maharashtra [2000(3) SCC 557] – The Supreme Court of India held that to attract the provisions of Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, the offense must be committed against a person on the ground that such person belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.
The Court noted that the language of Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act is *pari materia* with Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. The Court interpreted that the offense 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.
| Authority | How the Court Considered it |
|---|---|
| Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman vs. State of Maharashtra [2000(3) SCC 557] – Supreme Court of India | Followed, to interpret the requirement of intention based on caste for offences under SC/ST Act. |
Judgment
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s submission that the act was not committed with the intention that the victim belonged to a Scheduled Caste. | Accepted. The Court held that the conviction under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act was not sustainable. |
| State’s submission that the conviction was justified as the prosecutrix belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the appellant had outraged her modesty. | Rejected. The Court held that the intention of the accused should be that the victim belongs to a Scheduled Caste. |
The Supreme Court held that the conviction of the appellant under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act was not sustainable on merits. The Court observed that even from the highest allegations of the prosecutrix, the act was not committed by the accused with the intention that he was doing so upon a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste.
The Court relied on the case of Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman vs. State of Maharashtra [2000(3) SCC 557], where it was held that the offense must be committed against a person on the ground that such person belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.
The Court stated, “In the present case, there is no evidence at all to the effect that the appellant committed the offence alleged against him on the ground that the deceased is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe.”
The Court further stated, “To attract the provisions of Section 3(2)( v) of the Act, the sine qua non is that the victim should be a person who belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and that the offence under the Penal Code, 1860 is committed against him on the basis that such a person belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe.”
The Court concluded, “In the absence of such ingredients, no offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act arises.”
The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act and acquitted him of the charge.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of evidence showing that the appellant committed the offense with the specific intention that the victim belonged to a Scheduled Caste. The Court emphasized that the SC/ST Act requires a direct link between the offense and the victim’s caste identity. The Court’s reasoning was based on the interpretation of Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act and the precedent set in Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman vs. State of Maharashtra [2000(3) SCC 557].
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Lack of caste-based intent | 60% |
| Interpretation of Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act | 30% |
| Precedent in Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
Key Takeaways
✓ The Supreme Court clarified that for an offense under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act, the act must be committed with the specific intention that the victim belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.
✓ The mere fact that the victim belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is not sufficient to establish an offense under this provision.
✓ This judgment emphasizes the importance of establishing a direct link between the offense and the victim’s caste identity.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the release of the appellant, as he was on bail, and discharged his bail bonds.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that for an offense under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act, the act must be committed with the specific intention that the victim belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. This clarifies and reinforces the requirement of a direct link between the offense and the victim’s caste identity, aligning with the principles established in Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman vs. State of Maharashtra [2000(3) SCC 557].
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Dashrath Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh emphasizes that the SC/ST Act requires a clear intention to commit an offense based on the victim’s caste identity. The court quashed the conviction under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act, as the prosecution failed to prove that the offense was committed with the intention that the victim belonged to a Scheduled Caste. This judgment reinforces the need to establish a direct link between the offense and the victim’s caste identity for convictions under the SC/ST Act.