SHUBHANGI DILIP KULKARNI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEAVE to amend granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith.

(2.) HEARD the learned advocate for the applicants-original accused, the learned advocate for the respondent no.2-orignial complainant and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

(3.) THE learned advocate for the Respondent no.2 placed reliance on the decisions of the Single Judge of the Kerala High Court and Andhra Pradesh High Court i.e. in the case of Rosamma Thomas and another Vs. Circle Inspector of Police, Tripunithura and others, reported in 1999 (105) CRLJ 1666 KER and in the case of Naga Bhixam alias Bhixapathi Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh; 1996 (102) CRLJ 2400 AP. In the case of Naga Bhixam (supra), it is held that "in the cases where the offences are tried under Act, it is not necessary to allege that the offence has been committed on the ground that the victim belongs to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe, whether the accused has committed the offence on that ground or not has to be ascertained from the material gathered during the trial and it is not possible to say at the stage from the complaint itself that the petitioner has not committed the offence on the ground that the victim was a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.