The Supreme Court in the case of Dashrath Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh clarified that a conviction under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 cannot be sustained unless the act of outraging the modesty of a woman was committed on the ground of caste. The court emphasized that a plain reading of the section reveals that the offence should be committed with the intention that the victim belongs to the Scheduled Caste. The appellant was acquitted of the charge as the court found the conviction under the SC/ST Act not sustainable on merits.
CASE DETAILS:
Dashrath Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh
2024 LiveLaw (SC) 66
Supreme Court
Coram: Justices B.R. Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and Sandeep Mehta
BRIEF FACTS:
- The accused-appellant faced conviction by the trial court for offences under Sections 451 (House trespass to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment) and 354 (Assault or criminal force to a woman with the intent to outrage her modesty) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 along with Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act.
- Disputing the conviction, the accused appealed to the High Court which sustained the conviction under the SC & ST Act but discharged the accused for the IPC offence citing its non-compoundable nature.
- Dissatisfied with the High Court’s verdict on the SC & ST Act conviction, the accused has now filed a criminal appeal before the Supreme Court.
OBSERVATIONS:
It is evident from a straightforward interpretation of the section that the offence of outraging modesty should be committed with the intention that the victim belongs to the Scheduled Caste category.
The section in question states: “Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, assaults or uses force on any woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe with the intent to dishonour or outrage her modesty shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term not less than six months but may extend to five years and with fine.”
In this case, the complainant alleged that the accused attempted to outrage her modesty while she was engaged in household chores in his house. Upon reviewing the case, the court observed that 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. Therefore, 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.
JUDGEMENT:
A conviction for the offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 cannot be sustained if the act of outraging the modesty of a woman was not committed on the ground of caste. The court held that the conviction of the accused-appellant for the offense under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act was otherwise also not sustainable on merits. As a result, the appellant was acquitted of the charge under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act.
