SUDAMATI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal, the appellant has challenged her conviction under section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The facts giving rise to the case, state briefly, are that, the accused and the victim both reside in the same village. On 15.4.1992, at about 7. 00 a. m. in the morning, people of the village had gathered around the handpump to carry water. Both accused and the complainant victim were present there, While going away, the pitcher of the complainant touched the pitcher of the accused and, therefore, the accused abused the complainant. The abuse was obviously in public view and was humiliating the victim, belonging to the Scheduled Caste. On the complaint of the victim, investigation was conducted and accused, along with several others, was prosecuted. The prosecution examined 6 witnesses to prove its case and the learned trial Judge, on appreciation of the evidence as led, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the assault, He, therefore, acquitted all other accused persons except the appellant herein. The learned trial Judge convicted the appellant under section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Atrocities Act for short) and sentenced her to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. It is this order which is challenged in this appeal.

(2.) With the assistance of learned counsel for the appellant and the learned a. P. P. , I have reappreciated the evidence on record and reconsidered the findings as arrived by the learned trial Judge. It is the submission on behalf of the appellant that even if all the facts are accepted as proved, as was done by the learned trial Judge, the conviction under section 3 (l) (x) of the Atrocities Act is unsustainable in law because there is no proof on record that the accused had the knowledge of the fact that the victim complainant belonged to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The submission is that the Atrocities Act is a special enactment repealing the earlier enactment viz. Protection of Civil Rights Act of 1955. It is enacted to curb the unwarranted atrocities on the members of scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. It was a reformative legislation aimed at preventing atrocities on people belonging to a particular category merely because they belong to that category. Therefore, after the enactment of this legislation, if a person commits an assault, he is liable to penal action prescribed under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, but if he knows that the person who is assaulted belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, then he will have to pay additional penalty for assaulting the member of the Scheduled Caste or scheduled Tribe. Therefore, the mens rea or intention is integral part of the offences under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and in addition it must be proved by the prosecution that the accused knew the caste or tribe of the complainant.

(3.) According to learned A. P. P. , the Act is intended to protect the members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It is to prevent atrocities on them. Therefore, what is necessary for conviction under section 3 is the fact of assault or commission of any of the offences mentioned in section 3. Knowledge is immaterial. We have to consider these submissions in the light of the enactment as legislated by the Parliament of India