“Offence must be committed on the grounds of caste for conviction under SC/ST Act”: Supreme court sets aside the conviction of a man accused of outraging woman’s modesty
Last Updated on January 30, 2024 by News Desk
The Supreme Court recently set aside the conviction of a man for the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989.
A bench of Justices B R Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and Sandeep Mehta observed that a person can only be convicted under SC/ST for outraging the modesty of a woman, only if he had the intention that the victim belonged to the SC/ST category.
“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” the court observed.
As per the FIR and the sworn testimony of the prosecutrix, it was alleged that the prosecutrix-complainant was engaged in 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.
Vide judgment dated 30th September 2002 passed by Special Judge, the accused-appellant was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 451, 354 of the 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 a fine.
The conviction was challenged in the high court by the accused. During the pendency of the appeal before the High Court, the accused-appellant and the prosecutrix-complainant had amicably settled their differences by filing a joint application under Section 320 CrPC supported by their affidavits. However, the application was rejected by the high court on the grounds that the offence is not compoundable under the SC/ST act. Thus, it upheld the conviction under the SC & ST Act and discharged the accused for an offence committed under IPC. the simple imprisonment of one year awarded to the accused-appellant on that count was reduced to six months.
The impugned judgment of the High Court was challenged before the apex court which contented that the conviction of the accused under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act was not sustainable on the merits. It contended that the act of outraging the modesty of woman must be done on the ground of the caste. “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.” The court said.
Thus, the court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction of the accused.
Case title: DASHRATH SAHU VERSUS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Written by Shagun Behal
