LI Network
Published on: January 31, 2024 at 11:50 IST
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has emphasized 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 a woman’s modesty is committed on the basis of caste.
The Court highlighted that the language of the provision requires the offense to be committed with the specific intention of targeting a person belonging to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes based on their caste identity.
The relevant section states that anyone, not belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, who assaults or uses force against a woman from these communities with the intent to dishonor or outrage her modesty, shall be punishable.
The Court, consisting of Justices B.R. Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra, and Sandeep Mehta, underscored the importance of the accused having the intention that the victim belongs to the Scheduled Caste category.
The Court referred to the case of Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman Vs. State of Maharashtra (2000) to support its interpretation.
In the case under consideration, the allegation involved the accused attempting to outrage the modesty of the complainant, who was engaged in household chores at the accused appellant’s residence.
Upon careful examination of the case record, the court concluded that even considering the highest allegations made by the complainant, the accused did not commit the offense with the intention of targeting a person from the Scheduled Caste.
In the background of the case, the accused appellant had been convicted by the trial court for offenses under Sections 451 (House-trespass), 354 (Assault on a woman with intent to outrage her modesty) of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act.
The High Court upheld the conviction under the SC & ST Act, leading the accused to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court, while setting aside the conviction under the SC/ST Act, highlighted that the conviction was not sustainable on merits.
The appellant was acquitted of the charge under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act. The case details are identified as DASHRATH SAHU VERSUS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH.