SC/ST Act attracted only if offence is committed because victim belongs to SC/ST, not merely because victim is member of SC/ST: Chhattisgarh HC

The Chhattisgarh High Court recently held that the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) will be attracted only if the offence was committed on account of victim belonging to the SC/ST community (Pavas Sharma v. State Of Chhattisgarh and anr). .A case under the SC/ST Act would not be made out merely because a person against whom an offence has been committed belongs to SC/ST community, the Court said. .The Court further held that the statutory bar on the grant of anticipatory bail to persons charged with an offence under the SC/ST Act would not apply where a prima facie case is not made out against the accused. .Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Khuman Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh to observe, ."The offence under Section 3(2)(V)(a) of the Act of 1989 would be prima facie made out only when the allegation by the victim is that the victim was assaulted on the ground that victim belonged to reserved category or where material collected during investigation prima facie shows that the victim was assaulted for the reason that he/she belonged to reserved category.".The Court noted that Section 3(2)(V)(a) of the 1989 Act is para materia to Section 3(2)(V) of the Act, which enhances the punishment imposed on persons who commit offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) on a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, knowing that the victim belongs to the SC/ST community. .In any case, the Judge noted that in both the provisions, there is nothing to show that the offence would be attracted only because it is committed on a person belonging to a reserved category (SC/ST community)..The High Court went on to hold that it is now well-settled that:"... where enhanced punishment is provided as contained under Section 3(2)(V)(a) of the Act of 1989, in order to convict a person under that provision, the prosecution is required to show that the offence was committed on the person belonging to reserved category on the ground that the person was member of reserved category and where there is no such material, offence under Section 3(2)(V)(a) of the Act of 1989 could not be said to be prima facie made out.".Justice Shrivastava also noted that the Supreme Court in Prathvi Raj Chouhan vs. Union of India and Others stated that bail can be granted to persons accused under the SC/ST Act where no prima facie case is made out. .It may be noted that Section 18 of the SC/ST Act generally bars the grant of bail to persons committing offences under the Act. .In this case, however, applying the Supreme Court's rulings, the High Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant before it. The applicant had been charged under the SC/ST Act after allegedly misbehaving with a woman belonging to a scheduled caste community. .The Court was told that the applicant and the woman were friends and that they had got into a quarrel when the alleged offence took place. The complainant also told the Court that she had entered into a compromise with the applicant and that she would not be opposing the bail plea. .The State opposed the bail plea, asserting that the offence had been committed because the prosecutrix belonged to SC/ST community. .The Court, however, found that there was no prima facie case made out against the accused applicant..".... there is no whisper in the written complaint or the case diary statement that the reason for which the victim was assaulted by the applicant was because of she belonging to reserved category," the Court observed. .Terming the subordinate court's earlier order denying bail to the applicant as mechanical and patently illegal, the Court went on to allow the applicant anticipatory bail, given that "complainant does not make out a prima facie case for applicability of Section 3(2)(V)(a) of the Act of 1989 and therefore, bar created under Section 18 shall not apply.".Advocate Sharad Mishra appeared for the bail applicant. Government Advocate Pawan Kesharwani represented the State whereas Advocate Prasoon Agrawal appeared for the complainant. .[Read Order]