Whether The Accused Must Know That The Victim Belongs To Scheduled Caste Or Tribe For Conviction For Offences Under The SC / ST Act.

THE SCHEDULED CASTES AND THE SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989, (Hereinafter referred to as the SC/ ST Act) was passed with the objective of preventing the commission of offences of atrocities against the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes however, lately the act has been frequently misused for harassing innocent persons.

An important question that arises in offences pertaining to the said Act is whether a person accused of any offence under the act must have knowledge of the fact that victim belongs to a Schedule Caste / Scheduled Tribe. Let’s look at the wordings some of the offences under the said act before we proceed to answer the aforesaid question.

“Section 3(2) (v) of the said act has been reproduced below:

Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,—

(v) commits any offence under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) punishable with imprisonment

for a term of ten years or more against a person or property [knowing that such person is a member

of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member], shall be

punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine;”

From the above it is can be seen that the aforesaid offence would require the following:-

1. Accused should not be a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe

2. Accused should have committed an offence under IPC which provides minimum of 10 years of imprisonment.

3. Victim should belong to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or the property should belong to any such member.

4. Accused should have knowledge of the fact that the victim or the property belongs to a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe.

The Supreme Court while interpreting the above offence in the case of Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman Vs. State of Maharashtra has held that to attract the provisions of Section 3(2) (v) of the Act, the sine qua non (essential requirement) is that the victim should be a person who belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and that the offence under the Penal Code, 1860 is committed against him on the basis that such a person belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. In the aforesaid offence the requirement that the offence is committed on the ground of the caste of the victim is explicitly mentioned in the wording of the offence.

An another offence Section 3(1) (xi) of the SC/ST Act (This section was removed after the amendment) was recently interpreted by the Supreme Court. The wording of the offence has been reproduced below:

3. Punishments for offences of atrocities.—(1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,—

(i)-(x)…..

(xi) assaults or uses force to any woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe with intent to dishonour or outrage her modesty;

From the wording it can be seen that the requirement that the accused should have knowledge of the caste of the victim and the offence should have been committed on the ground of the caste of the victim is not explicitly mentioned in the wording of the aforesaid section.

The Supreme Court in the case of DASHRATH SAHU versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH (SLP(Crl.) No(s). 6367 of 2023) while interpreting the aforesaid section 3(1)(xi) of the act has relied upon the interpretation of Section 3(2)(v) of the Act in the case of Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman Vs. State of Maharashtra and has held that that the offence must be committed upon a person belonging to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes with the intention that it was being done on the ground of caste.

Now, can the same interpretation be relied upon for interpreting other offences under the Act? In our opinion the Act was enacted with the objective of preventing atrocities against the members of Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes on the basis of their caste. If the accused is not aware of the caste of the victim or if the offence has not been committed on the basis of the caste of the victim, the ingredients of the offences under the act are not made out and the accused should not be convicted under the provisions of the said Act.