On February 28, in the matter of Suresh Ram Vishvakarma v. State of Chhattisgarh, the High Court of Chhattisgarh held that just because the victim belongs to the ST community it cannot be accused that the accused dominated her will to sexually exploit her, an act which is punishable under Section 3(1)(xii) (as it stood before 2016 amendment) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

 The dual bench was headed by Justice Sanjay Kumar Agrawal and Justice Sachin Singh Rajput. While giving the judgement the Court observed,

“In our considered opinion, merely because the victim was a member of Scheduled Tribe community, it cannot be assumed that the appellant was able to dominate her will to exploit her sexually. Even otherwise, the charges framed against the appellant are very vague and the prosecution has not led any evidence to show that the appellant was in commanding and controlling position…”

In the said matter, on 22.04.2013 the accused was charged to commit sexual intercourse with a minor belonging to the ST Community.  Later, after 6 days on 28.04.2023, the mother of the minor lodged FIR against the accused.

The victim was medically examined and the Doctors confirmed that she was sexually being harassed and a charge sheet was filed against the accused. Trial Court convicted the appellant for offences punishable under Section 376(2) IPC, Section 6 read with Section 5(i/k/m) of the Act of 2012 and Section 3(1)(xii) of the SC & ST Act, finding him guilty of the said offences.

 After doing the whole study of the case, the Court held that the Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(i) of IPC and Section 6 read with Section 5 (i/k/m) of the POCSO Act.

However, the Court expressed its reservation over the complicity of the appellant under Section 3(i)(xii) of the SC & ST Act, which states that, -  “Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, being in a position to dominate the will of a woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and uses that position to exploit her sexually to which she would not have otherwise agreed.”

The Court held that as per the provision, it must be proved that the accused was in a position to dominate the will of a woman belonging to an SC or ST community and uses that position to exploit her sexually to which she would not have otherwise agreed.

Mr Arvind Sinha, (Advocate) was the Counsel member of the appellant and Mr. Avinash Singh, (Counsel for the State) was the Counsel member of the Respondent.

We hope that this article helped you in some way or another! For more information, follow us on Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, and Telegram, or subscribe to our newsletter.