SUPREME COURT QUASHED ORDER OF THE TRIAL COURT AND UPHELD BY THE HIGH COURT FOR THE OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 3(1)(XI) OF THE SC/ST ACT
Category: Criminal Law
「 ✦ Content ✦ 」
CASE NUMBER: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). …….. OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No(s). 6367 of 2023)
DATED ON: JANUARY 29, 2024.
QUORUM: HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI, JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA & JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The accused appellant challenged the order dated 21st March, 2023, passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No. 1088 of 2002. The order disallowed the joint application filed by the appellant and the complainant under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to the extent of the offense punishable under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The appellant was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 451, 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act. He was sentenced to simple imprisonment of one year and a fine.
During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant and the prosecutrix/complainant settled their differences, and a joint application under Section 320 CrPC was filed. The High Court partially allowed the application, acquitting the appellant of the charges. However, the application was rejected qua the offense punishable under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act, stating that the same is not compoundable and the minimum sentence provided for such offence is six months. The application under Section 320 CrPC was rejected qua the SC/ST Act, and the simple imprisonment awarded to the appellant was reduced to six months.
LEGAL PROVISIONS:
INDIAN PENAL CODE
Section – 354: Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty - Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will there by outrage her modesty1, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section – 451: House-trespass in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment -Whoever commits house-trespass in order to the committing of any offence punishable with imprisonment, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, and shall also be liable to fine;
And if the offence intended to be committed is theft, the term of the imprisonment may be extended to seven years.
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Section – 320: Compounding of offences -
1. The offences punishable under the sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) specified in the first two columns of the Table next following may be compounded by the persons mentioned in the third column of that Table.
2. The offences punishable under the sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) specified in the first two columns of the table next following may, with the permission of the Court before which any prosecution for such offence is pending, be compounded by the persons mentioned in the third column of that table.
3. When an offence is compoundable under this section, the abetment of such offence or an attempt to commit such offence (when such attempt is itself an offence) or where the accused is liable under section 34 or 149 of the Indian Penal Code, may be compounded in like manner.
4. (a) When the person who would otherwise be competent to compound an offence under this section is under the age of eighteen years or is an idiot or a lunatic, any person competent to contract on his behalf, may, with the permission of the Court compound such offence.
(b) When the person who would otherwise be competent to compound an offence under this section is dead, the legal representative, as defined in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) of such person may, with the consent of the Court compound such offence.
5. When the accused has been committed for trial or when he has been convicted and an appeal is pending no composition for the offence shall be allowed without the leave of the Court to which he is committed, or, as the case may be, before which the appeal is to be heard.
6. A High Court or Court of Session acting in the exercise of its powers of revision under section 401 may allow any person to compound any offence which such person is competent to compound under this section.
7. No offence shall be compounded if the accused is, by reason of a previous conviction, liable either to enhanced punishment or to a punishment of a different kind for such offence.
8. The composition of an offence under this section shall have the effect of an acquittal of the accused with whom the offence has been compounded.
9. No offence shall be compounded except as provided by this section.
SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES(PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT.
Section 3(1)(xi): Punishments for offences of atrocities.—(1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,—
(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;
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.
ISSUE RAISED:
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.
CONTENTION OF APPELLANT:
The counsel for the appellant most humbly submits that the 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 complainant, came to be filed which was partly allowed by the High Court by the impugned order. Therefore the counsel request to set – aside the order of high court for conviction for the offence under the ST/SC Act.
CONTENTION OF RESPONDENT:
The counsel for the respondent most humbly submits 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 hired for doing the household chores. Apparently from the highest allegations of the prosecutrix, the offending act was committed by the accused with the intention that he was doing so upon a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste and should take the advantage of his superior caste.
COURT’S ANALYSIS:
The case involves a prosecutrix/complainant who was engaged in household chores at the accused appellant's house, who tried to outrage her modesty. The offending act was not committed by the accused with the intention of causing harm to a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste.
This issue was addressed in the case of Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman Vs. State of Maharashtra 2000(3) SCC 557, where it was held that 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 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.
In the present case, there is no evidence to the effect that the appellant committed the offense alleged against him on the ground that the deceased is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe.
The court believes that both the trial court and the High Court missed the essence of this aspect, and the conviction under the provision should be set aside. The language of Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act is pari materia, as it also provides that the offence must be committed upon a person belonging to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes with the intention of doing so on the ground of caste.
JUDGEMENT:
The court has 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 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. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
OLQ is a Pan-India basis law firm connecting legal expertise nationwide.
Written by: ADVOCATE ANIK
