Compromise petition filed under section 320 Cr.P.C and allowed for some IPC offences but denied for section 3(1)(xi) SC/ST Act
2) The accused appellant has assailed the order dated 21st March, 2023 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No. 1088 of 2002 whereby the joint application filed by the appellant and the complainant of the case under Section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(hereinafter being referred to as ‘CrPC’) was disallowed to the extent of the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989(hereinafter being referred to as the ‘SC/ST Act’).
Appellant was convicted for sections 451, 354 IPC and section 3(1)(xi) SC/ST Act
3) Vide judgment dated 30th September, 2002 passed by Special Judge, Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Bilaspur, C.G. in Special Sessions Trial No. 115/2001, the accused appellant was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 451, 354 of Indian Penal Code, 1860(hereinafter being referred to as ‘IPC’) and Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of one year and fine.
Hon’ble High court in appeal accepted the compromise application in respect of other IPC offences but reduced the sentence of SC/ST Act
4) The accused appellant challenged the said judgment by filing Criminal Appeal No. 1088/2002 in the High Court of Chhattisgarh. During the pendency of the appeal before the High Court, the accused appellant and the prosecutrix/complainant seem to have amicably settled their differences and accordingly a joint application under Section 320 CrPC, supported by affidavits of the accused appellant and the prosecutrix/complainant, came to be filed which was partly allowed by the High Court by the impugned order dated 21st March, 2023. The High Court accepted the compromise application to the extent of the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 451 IPC and acquitted the accused appellant of the said charges. However, the application was rejected qua the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act holding that the same is not compoundable and the minimum sentence provided for such offence is six months. Accordingly, the application under Section 320 CrPC was rejected qua the offence under SC/ST Act and the simple imprisonment of one year awarded to the accused appellant on that count was reduced to six months.
Hence this appeal.
Point for consideration
6) The short point arising for consideration of this Court is as to whether the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act and the rejection of the application under Section 320 CrPC was justified and lawful.
8) A plain reading of the section makes it clear that the offence (section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act) of outraging the modesty should be committed with the intention that the victim belonged to the Scheduled Caste category.
Hon’ble Supreme court finds no intention that the accused had to insult complainant based on her testimony
9) We have gone through the FIR and the sworn testimony of the prosecutrix/complainant as extracted in the judgments of the High Court as well as that of the trial Court. The case as projected in the FIR and the sworn testimony of the prosecutrix would reveal that the prosecutrix/complainant was engaged for doing household jobs in the house of the accused appellant who tried to outrage her modesty while the prosecutrix/complainant was doing the household chores. Apparently thus, 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. This issue was dealt with by this Court in the case of Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman Vs. State of Maharashtra (para.9) reported in 2000(3) SCC 557.
Acquitting the appellant
- Considered in light of the above factual and legal position, we are of the opinion that 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. Hence, the conviction of the accused appellant as recorded by the trial Court and upheld by the High Court for the offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act is hereby set aside and quashed. The appellant is acquitted of the charge under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are discharged.
Party
DASHRATH SAHU ….APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH ….RESPONDENT(S) – CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 487 OF 2024 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s). 6367 of 2023) – 2024 INSC 68 – January 29, 2024 [3 judge bench].
Dashrath Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh – 196532023_2024-01-29
Author’s note
Kindly note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court 3 judge bench did not make any comment or finding on the petition filed by the accused is correct or wrong nor dismissed was legal or illegal.
