CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High Court

Acquittal in SC/ST Act Case: Outraging Modesty Should Be Committed with The Intention To Target Victim's Caste Identity: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a notable ruling, the Supreme Court of India has set aside the conviction of an individual under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, emphasizing the crucial requirement of intent to target the victim's caste identity for the application of the Act. The judgment, delivered on January 29, 2024, in the case of Dashrath Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, has led to the acquittal of the accused, who was previously convicted for outraging the modesty of a woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste.

"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," observed the bench, consisting of Justices B.R. Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra, and Sandeep Mehta. This observation forms the cornerstone of the Supreme Court's decision, addressing the interpretation of Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act.

The case stems from an incident where the appellant, Dashrath Sahu, was convicted by the Special Judge for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Bilaspur, C.G., for offences under the Indian Penal Code and the SC/ST Act. However, the Supreme Court noted that the act was not committed with the intention of targeting the victim on the grounds of her caste.

In its judgment, the Court also referenced the precedent set in Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman Vs. State of Maharashtra, reiterating the importance of the intention behind the act for it to fall under the purview of the SC/ST Act. "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 explained.

The ruling has significant implications for how courts interpret and apply the provisions of the SC/ST Act, particularly in cases involving accusations of offences against members of Scheduled Castes and Tribes. The Supreme Court's emphasis on the necessity of proving intent to target the victim's caste identity marks a crucial consideration in the application of this law.

The acquittal of Dashrath Sahu underlines the judiciary's commitment to ensuring that the provisions of the SC/ST Act are applied judiciously and in accordance with the intent of the law. This landmark judgment is expected to set a precedent for future cases involving similar circumstances.                  

Date of Decision: 29th January 2024

DASHRATH SAHU VS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

 

Latest Legal News