Dashrath Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Background
Dashrath Sahu, the appellant, was convicted by the trial court under Sections 451 (house trespass to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment) and 354 (assault or criminal force to a woman with intent to outrage her modesty) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), as well as Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act). The High Court acquitted him of the IPC offences but upheld his conviction under the SC/ST Act. Dissatisfied, Sahu appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the conviction under the SC/ST Act.
Legal Issue
The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether a conviction under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act can be sustained in the absence of evidence that the act of outraging the modesty of a woman was committed specifically on the ground of her caste.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court carefully examined the language of Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act, which penalizes anyone who assaults or uses criminal force to any woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe with intent to outrage her modesty, "on the ground that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe". The Court emphasized that the offence must be committed with the specific intention of targeting the victim because of her caste status.
Upon reviewing the FIR and the prosecutrix’s testimony, the Court found that while the accused attempted to outrage the prosecutrix’s modesty, there was no evidence to suggest that the act was motivated by the victim’s caste. The allegations did not indicate any caste-based motive or intention behind the act. The Supreme Court referred to the precedent set in Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman v. State of Maharashtra (2000), which also required proof of caste-based intent for conviction under similar provisions of the SC/ST Act.
Judgment and Outcome
The Supreme Court held that the conviction under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act was not sustainable in the absence of evidence of caste-based motive. Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted Dashrath Sahu of the charge. The appellant’s bail bonds were discharged, and any pending applications were disposed of.
Significance
This judgment clarifies that for a conviction under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act, the prosecution must prove that the act was committed with the intention of targeting the victim on account of her caste. The ruling reinforces the necessity of establishing a specific caste-based motive in cases under the SC/ST Act, impacting how such offences are prosecuted and adjudicated in the future.
RELATED Blog
0 comments