Introduction:

The Supreme Court, in a recent judgment, clarified that a conviction under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 cannot be sustained unless the act of outraging the modesty of a woman was committed on the ground of caste. The Court emphasized that the language of the provision requires the offence to be committed with the intention of caste-based discrimination. This ruling came in the case of Dashrath Sahu, where the accused appealed against his conviction under the SC/ST Act.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The appellant challenged his conviction under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act, contending that the act of outraging the modesty did not have the intention of caste-based discrimination. The prosecution argued that the language of the section focuses on the act being committed upon a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe with the intention of caste discrimination. The High Court had upheld the conviction, emphasizing that offences under the SC/ST Act are not compoundable.

Court’s Judgement:

The Supreme Court, comprising Justices B.R. Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra, and Sandeep Mehta, set aside the conviction under the SC/ST Act, citing the requirement of caste-based intent in Section 3(1)(xi). The Court referred to precedent and concluded that the offence must be committed with the specific intention that the victim belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The appellant was acquitted of the charge under the SC/ST Act.