Citation : 2003 Local Law (CG) 57
In a ruling that narrowed the charges against an accused in a long-pending criminal matter, Justice L.C. Bhadoo of the Chhattisgarh High Court has allowed a revision petition by Mehndi Lal Yadav and set aside the trial court’s decision to frame an offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The order, delivered after reviewing the record, leaves intact the rape charge under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code but finds no prima facie material to sustain the enhanced atrocity allegation.
The case dates back to a complaint lodged on 2 December 2001 by the prosecutrix, Yogeshwari Mandavi, who alleged that the accused had begun a sexual relationship with her in November 1999 and repeatedly assaulted her thereafter. The complaint also stated that the prosecutrix belonged to a Scheduled Tribe and described two terminations of pregnancy said to have resulted from the relationship. The police registered a case under Section 376 IPC and Section 3(1)(xii) of the SC/ST Act, and a charge sheet followed.
At the charge-framing stage, the Special Judge (Prevention of Atrocities), Ambikapur, included an offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, which applies when an offence otherwise punishable with ten or more years’ imprisonment is committed “on the ground” that the victim is a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. In the revision petition, the accused accepted the framing of the rape charge but challenged the additional statutory allegation under the SC/ST Act, arguing that the prosecution had produced no evidence to show that the alleged sexual offences were motivated by the prosecutrix’s tribal status.
Justice Bhadoo’s analysis turned on a close reading of Section 3(2)(v). The court explained that this provision requires two elements: first, that the underlying offence is of the kind specified (an IPC offence punishable with ten years or more); and second, that the offence was committed because the victim was a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The judge relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman v. State of Maharashtra, which affirms that the perpetrator’s motive or animus tied to the victim’s caste or tribe must be evident before the enhanced offence can be said to arise.
On the record before the High Court, Justice Bhadoo observed that the prosecutrix’s statements and the materials placed by the prosecution describe the course of events and the alleged sexual acts, but they do not contain any allegation or evidence that those acts were committed because she belonged to a Scheduled Tribe. There was no material demonstrating that the accused’s conduct was motivated by caste or tribal prejudice, the judge found. The court also noted the absence of a tehsildar’s or sub-divisional magistrate’s certificate specifically proving the prosecutrix’s status as a member of a Scheduled Tribe, a point raised by defence counsel.
Because the statutory ingredient of conduct “on the ground” of the victim’s SC/ST status was missing from the prosecution material, the High Court concluded that there was no prima facie case to frame the offence under Section 3(2)(v). The order dated 2 December 2002 was therefore quashed only to that extent. The rape charge under Section 376 IPC and the charge under Section 3(1)(xii) of the SC/ST Act in the charge sheet remain on the file, and the trial court has been directed to proceed in accordance with law after considering the available material.
The ruling illustrates a strict approach to the requirement that enhanced atrocity offences under the SC/ST Act must be premised on evidence that the criminal act was committed because of the victim’s caste or tribal identity. The High Court made clear that, without prima facie material to show discriminatory motive, courts should not frame the more serious compound charge under Section 3(2)(v).
Case Details : Criminal Revision No. 111 of 2003, Mehandi Lal Yadav vs. The State of Chhattisgarh (12.03.2003)
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Abhishek Sinha, Adv. For Respondents/Defendant: Prafull Bharat, Panel Lawyer
Acts/Rules/Orders:
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 161; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) – Section 376; Scheduled Castes And The Scheduled Tribes (prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Section 3(1)(xii), Scheduled Castes And The Scheduled Tribes (prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Section 3(2)(v)
Cases Referred:
Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman vs. State of Maharashtra [AIR 2000 SC 1876, ( 2000 ) 3 SCC 557, [ 2000 ] 1 SCR 1155]
======
आपराधिक – आरोप निर्धारण – अनुसूचित जाति एवं अनुसूचित जनजाति (अत्याचार निवारण) अधिनियम, 1989 की धारा 3(2)(v) तथा भारतीय दंड संहिता, 1860 (IPC) की धारा 376 – प्रॉसिक्यूट्रिक्स अनुसूचित जनजाति की सदस्य थी। अभियुक्त पर प्रॉसिक्यूट्रिक्स के साथ बलात्कार करने का आरोप लगाया गया था। विशेष न्यायाधीश ने अभियुक्त के विरुद्ध भारतीय दंड संहिता की धारा 376 के साथ-साथ अत्याचार निवारण अधिनियम की धारा 3(2)(v) के अंतर्गत भी आरोप निर्धारित किया। अभियुक्त इस आदेश से असंतुष्ट था और उसने इस संबंध में पुनरीक्षण याचिका दायर की।
प्रश्न: क्या विशेष न्यायाधीश द्वारा धारा 3(2)(v) के अंतर्गत आरोप निर्धारण उचित था?
निर्णय: न्यायालय ने कहा कि प्रॉसिक्यूट्रिक्स द्वारा अभियुक्त के विरुद्ध जो आरोप लगाए गए हैं, उनमें यह कहीं नहीं कहा गया है कि अभियुक्त ने उसके अनुसूचित जनजाति का सदस्य होने के कारण उसके साथ बलात्कार किया। आरोप केवल यह है कि अभियुक्त ने पहले उसे जीवनभर साथ रहने का वादा किया और बाद में उसके साथ शारीरिक संबंध बनाए। ऐसे में यह नहीं कहा जा सकता कि अभियुक्त ने प्रॉसिक्यूट्रिक्स के साथ उसकी जनजातीय स्थिति के आधार पर अपराध किया।
धारा 3(2)(v) के तहत आरोप निर्धारण के लिए यह आवश्यक है कि अभियोजन के रिकॉर्ड में यह स्पष्ट रूप से दर्शाया गया हो कि अपराध अनुसूचित जाति या जनजाति सदस्य होने के कारण किया गया है। चूंकि इस मामले में ऐसा कोई प्राथमिक साक्ष्य नहीं है, विशेष न्यायाधीश द्वारा धारा 3(2)(v) के तहत आरोप निर्धारित करना त्रुटिपूर्ण था।
फलस्वरूप, पुनरीक्षण याचिका स्वीकार की गई और धारा 3(2)(v) के अंतर्गत आरोप निरस्त किया गया।
