The bench of the Supreme Court, including Justice BR Gavai, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, and Justice Sandeep Mehta, emphasized the importance of deliberate intent as per Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act. The justices noted that an act of outraging modesty qualifies under this section only if it is executed with a clear intention targeting the victim’s Scheduled Caste status.
The Supreme Court of India has acquitted a man previously convicted under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act), emphasizing the necessity of specific intent in such cases. The ruling clarifies the interpretation of offenses under the SC/ST Act, particularly regarding the commission of the offense of outraging modesty.
Also read- Supreme Court Upholds Contempt Ruling Against -Lawyer (lawchakra.in)
The case, titled Dashrath Sahu v State Of Chhattisgarh, Criminal Appeal No(s). ___ of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s). 6367 of 2023), involved an appeal against a High Court order. The appellant was initially convicted for offenses under Sections 451 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act. While the High Court partially accepted the joint application for IPC offenses, acquitting the appellant, it rejected the appeal concerning the SC/ST Act offense.
The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justice BR Gavai, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, and Justice Sandeep Mehta, focused on the need for a specific intention under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act. The court observed that for an offense of outraging modesty to fall under this section, it must be committed with the specific intention that the victim belongs to the Scheduled Caste category.
Also read- Supreme Court Stresses State And Citizen Responsibility In Tree Protection (lawchakra.in)
The appellant, represented by Advocate Sameer Shrivastava, challenged the High Court’s order, arguing that there was no evidence of an intention to target a person from the Scheduled Caste while allegedly attempting to outrage the prosecutrix’s modesty. Advocate Mahesh Kumar appeared for the respondent.
After examining the FIR and the sworn testimony of the prosecutrix, the Supreme Court noted that, despite the serious allegations, there was no indication that the accused committed the act with the intention of targeting a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste. The judgment referenced the case of Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman v State of Maharashtra [2000(3) SCC 557], which highlighted similar provisions requiring the offense to be committed against a person of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes with caste-based intention.
Concluding that the conviction of the accused-appellant under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act was not sustainable on merits, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction of the appellant. This judgment underscores the importance of specific intent in cases under the SC/ST Act, setting a precedent for future legal interpretations and proceedings in similar cases.
Also read- Supreme Court Grants Approval For Centre’s ‘Permanent’ Forest Expert Body, Affirming Ongoing Jurisdiction | Central Empowered Committee (CEC) (lawchakra.in)
