In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court of India has underscored the crucial element of specific intention when interpreting offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act). The apex court held that the commission of the offence of outraging modesty under this Act must be accompanied by the specific intention that the victim belongs to the Scheduled Caste.

The case involved an appeal against a High Court order acquitting the appellant for Indian Penal Code (IPC) offenses under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) but rejecting it for the SC/ST Act offense. The accused was initially convicted for offences under Sections 451 and 354 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act. However, the High Court partially accepted the joint application for IPC offenses, acquitting the appellant, while rejecting it concerning the SC/ST Act offense.

The Supreme Court bench comprising Justice BR Gavai, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, and Justice Sandeep Mehta, emphasized the need for specific intention under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act. The court observed that the plain reading of the section makes it clear that the offense of outraging modesty should be committed with the intention that the victim belongs to the Scheduled Caste category.

The appellant challenged the High Court's order, arguing that there was no indication of an intention to target a person from the Scheduled Caste while allegedly attempting to outrage the prosecutrix's modesty. Advocate Sameer Shrivastava represented the appellant, while Advocate Mahesh Kumar appeared for the respondent.

The court, after a thorough examination of the FIR and the sworn testimony of the prosecutrix, noted that even considering the serious allegations made, there was no indication that the accused committed the act with the intention of targeting a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste. The judgment referred to the case of Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman v State of Maharashtra [2000(3) SCC 557], highlighting the similarity of provisions that require the offense to be committed against a person of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes with the intention based on caste.

The Supreme Court held that the conviction of the accused-appellant under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act was not sustainable on merits, and accordingly, the court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction of the appellant.

Case: Dashrath Sahu v State Of Chhattisgarh,

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S).___ OF 2024 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s). 6367 of 2023).

Click here to read/download Judgment.