Read Time: 09 minutes
“It is not the case of the prosecution that the rape was committed on the victim since she was a member of a Scheduled Caste,” the court said
The Madhya Pradesh High Court’s Indore bench has held that an accused would not be liable under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, if the offence of rape was committed without caste-based prejudice. The court, however, clarified that the accused would still be liable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
A division bench comprising Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Gajendra Singh, observed: “If an accused committed rape on a woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste only to satisfy his sexual lust, without any prejudice of caste to which the women belonged…he would be guilty of an offence of rape under Section 376 IPC but he would not be guilty of the offence under Section 3(2)(v), as he did not commit sexual intercourse with the girl on the ground that she was a Scheduled Caste girl.”
The court partly allowed the appeal filed by the accused, Shakir, challenging the judgment passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST), Dewas. The court set aside the appellant's conviction under the SC/ST Act while upholding other convictions under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
The case stemmed from an incident on August 12, 2015, when the father of the prosecutrix, a minor aged 16 years, reported to the police that his daughter had gone missing. He suspected Shakir, a resident of the same village, to have run away and married her.
The investigation revealed that the appellant, along with two others, entered the victim’s house and committed rape on her. Initially, the First Information Report (FIR) was registered under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC, and subsequently, offences under Sections 376(2)(i) of the IPC, Sections 3(1)(12) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, and Sections 3/4 and 5(B)/6 of the POCSO Act were added against Shakir, Amjad, and Yasin. Following the trial, the Special Judge (SC/ST), Dewas, acquitted Amjad and Yasin but convicted Shakir under various provisions, including life imprisonment under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.
The petitioner contended that the conviction under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act was erroneous since there was no allegation or evidence that the offence was committed due to the prosecutrix's caste.
The court emphasised that the offence occurred before the amendment to the SC/ST Act in 2016, which altered the wording of Section 3(2)(v) from “on the ground that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe” to “knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe.” The court reiterated the principle that for an offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act (pre-amendment), the prosecution must establish:
Referring to precedents including Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman v. State of Maharashtra (2000) and Dinesh alias Buddha v. State of Rajasthan (2006), the court highlighted that the mere fact that the victim belongs to a Scheduled Caste does not automatically attract the provisions of the SC/ST Act. There must be clear evidence that the offence was motivated by the victim’s caste status.
“The words ‘on the ground’ show that the prosecution is required to prove that the target of crime was selected ‘on the ground’ that he/she belonged to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, or that crime was committed for the reason that such person belonged to such community tribe. In other words it must be shown that if the victim would not have belonged to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, the crime would not have been committed. The cause for the offence must contain an element of caste/racial prejudice. Unless it is demonstrated that the accused offended the sensibilities of the victim in relation to his caste, the offence under Section 3(2)(v) is not constituted,” the court stated.
Finding the absence of any allegation or evidence suggesting that the sexual offence was committed due to the victim’s caste, the court quashed the conviction and life sentence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act while maintaining the other convictions and sentences.
Cause Title: Shakir v State of Madhya Pradesh [CRA 1677/2018]
Appearance: Advocate Nupur Garg – for the appellant; Addl. A.G. Sonal Gupta – for respondent/State.
Please Login or Register
