SANDEEP SAJU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition on hand is filed by the sole accused in S.C. No. 663/2017 pending on the files of Court of Sessions, Alappuzha that arose from Crime No. 148/2017 of Harippad Police Station, Alappuzha District. The offences allegedly involved are punishable under S. 302 of Indian Penal Code (for short, the I.P.C.) and S. 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, the SC/ST (PA) Act).

(2.) The prayer in the application is to delete S. 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (PA) Act from Annexure-A1 Final Report/Charge sheet, based on which Court of Sessions, Alappuzha has registered S.C. No. 663/2017 on its file. The allegation of the prosecution was that at 5.30 p.m. on 24.01.2017 due to previous animosity against one Mr. Ullas, aged 28 years and with intention to do him away, the petitioner inflicted stab injuries on his chest, hands, legs, abdomen and other parts of his body using a knife, in front of Saji Bhavan situated in Karuvatta Thekku Muri, Kumarapuram Village, intentionally and knowingly that by such acts, death of that person would be resulted. Consequently, the victim succumbed to injuries on 31.01.2017 at 5.25 p.m. For the reason that the person murdered is a member of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, F.I.R. was registered incorporating the offence under S. 3(2)(v) SC/ST (PA) Act. Investigation was commenced based on the allegations in the FIR and culminated in the filing of a final report, chargesheeting the petitioner for the offence punishable under S. 302 I.P.C. and S. 3(2)(v) SC/ST (PA) Act. From the aforesaid chargesheet that the offence under S. 3(2)(v) SC/ST (PA) Act is now sought to be deleted.

(3.) The argument of Sri J.R. Prem Navaz, the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the ingredients of the offence under S. 3(2)(v) SC/ST (PA) Act are not attracted from the allegations made by the prosecution in Annexure-A1. It is contended by the learned counsel, to constitute an offence punishable under S. 3(2)(v) SC/ST (PA) Act, though the word used therein is knowingly, it is inherent that the alleged act must have been committed against the victim for the reason that the victim is a member of SC/ST. According to him, an allegation that the act was done to the victim for the reason of being a member of SC/ST must be there to attract the offence. The learned counsel has also invited the attention of this Court to clause (i) of S. 3(1)(w) to submit that the word intentionally is incorporated therein and therefore, S. 3(2)(v) SC/ST (PA) Act, must also be read as if the word intentionally is there.