Dashrath Sahu vs The State Of Chhattisgarh

2024 INSC 68 NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2024 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s). 6367 of 2023)

DASHRATH SAHU ….APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF CHHATTISGARH ….RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

Mehta, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The accused appellant has assailed the order dated 21st

March, 2023 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur

in Criminal Appeal No. 1088 of 2002 whereby the joint application

filed by the appellant and the complainant of the case under

Section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(hereinafter being

referred to as ‘CrPC’) was disallowed to the extent of the offence Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Narendra Prasad

punishable under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Date: 2024.01.29 18:29:37 IST Reason:

1

Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No(s). 6367 of 2023

Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989(hereinafter

being referred to as the ‘SC/ST Act’).

3. Vide judgment dated 30th September, 2002 passed by Special

Judge, Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989 Bilaspur, C.G. in Special Sessions Trial No.

115/2001, the accused appellant was convicted for offences

punishable under Sections 451, 354 of Indian Penal Code,

1860(hereinafter being referred to as ‘IPC’) and Section 3(1)(xi) of

the SC/ST Act. He was sentenced to undergo simple

imprisonment of one year and fine.

4. The accused appellant challenged the said judgment by filing

Criminal Appeal No. 1088/2002 in the High Court of Chhattisgarh.

During the pendency of the appeal before the High Court, the

accused appellant and the prosecutrix/complainant seem to have

amicably settled their differences and accordingly a joint

application under Section 320 CrPC, supported by affidavits of the

accused appellant and the prosecutrix/complainant, came to be

filed which was partly allowed by the High Court by the impugned

order dated 21st March, 2023. The High Court accepted the

compromise application to the extent of the offences punishable

under Sections 354 and 451 IPC and acquitted the accused

2 Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No(s). 6367 of 2023

appellant of the said charges. However, the application was

rejected qua the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(xi) of the

SC/ST Act holding that the same is not compoundable and the

minimum sentence provided for such offence is six months.

Accordingly, the application under Section 320 CrPC was rejected

qua the offence under SC/ST Act and the simple imprisonment of

one year awarded to the accused appellant on that count was

reduced to six months.

5. Being aggrieved of the order dated 21st March, 2023, the

accused appellant has preferred the instant appeal. During the

pendency of the appeal, the appellant was released on bail vide

order dated 9th June, 2023 passed by this Court.

6. The short point arising for consideration of this Court is as to

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.

7. Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act reads as below:-

“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;

3 Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No(s). 6367 of 2023

… 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.”

8. 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.

9. We have gone through the FIR and the sworn testimony of

the prosecutrix/complainant as extracted in the judgments of the

High Court as well as that of the trial Court. The case as projected

in the FIR and the sworn testimony of the prosecutrix would reveal

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. Apparently thus, 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. This issue was dealt

with by this Court in the case of Masumsha Hasanasha

Musalman Vs. State of Maharashtra1 wherein it was held as

below:-

1

2000(3) SCC 557 4 Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No(s). 6367 of 2023

“9. Section 3(2)(v) of the Act provides that whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, commits any offence under the Penal Code, 1860 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. 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. 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. In the absence of such ingredients, no offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act arises. In that view of the matter, we think, both the trial court and the High Court missed the essence of this aspect. In these circumstances, the conviction under the aforesaid provision by the trial court as well as by the High Court ought to be set aside.” (Emphasis supplied)

10. In the said judgment, this Court dealt with a case involving

offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. The language of

Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act is pari materia as the same also

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.

11. Considered in light of the above factual and legal position, we

are of the opinion that 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. Hence, the conviction of the

5 Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No(s). 6367 of 2023

accused appellant as recorded by the trial Court and upheld by the

High Court for the offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act

is hereby set aside and quashed. The appellant is acquitted of the

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

on bail. His bail bonds are discharged.

12. The appeal is allowed accordingly.

13. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

………..………………………………J. (B.R. GAVAI)

………………………………………..J. (PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA)

……….……………………………….J. (SANDEEP MEHTA) New Delhi;

January 29, 2024.

6