Facts of the case
- Between 7 and 8 p.m. on 25.8.92 SaojiGamajiJadhav who belongs to the scheduled caste was done away to death.
- On the fateful day the deceased returned to the house at dusk and after some time left the house informing his wife that he would be going out for some time and would return soon thereafter. After about half an hour, the deceased left his home, the appellant came to the house of the deceased and enquired from Deubai {PW-4}, wife of deceased SaojiGamajiJadhav.
- She found that he was having a Jambiya(Knife). On coming to know from her that her husband had gone out of the house, the appellant started running through the lane. As the appellant was seen by Deubai with the Jambiya, she got suspicious and followed him and near the hospital of Dr.Kalwaghe, she saw the appellant stabbing the deceased.
- She stated that the appellant after giving two or three blows with the Jambiya and deceased fell on the ground ran away. When he left the place, she found that the deceased was having bleeding injuries and she tried to tie up a cloth around the wound but in the meanwhile he succumbed to the injuries.
- Thereafter she with the help of the police patil went to the Police Station, Buldana and lodged a complaint when the PSI, Shri Oval visited the spot and after recording her complaint and registering a case conducted inquest.
- When the appellant was in the custody, he produced Jambiya.
- The appellant charged by the Sessions Judge, Buldhana of having caused grievous injuries to one SaojiGamajiJadhav (the deceased) with Jambiya (knife) intentionally and knowingly that they would result in his death ,committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
- He was also charged under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
- The appellant stood convicted of the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years.
- He was further convicted of the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 months.
- Both the State and the appellant filed separate appeals to the High Court.
- The High Court, on re-examination of the evidence on record, allowed the appeal filed by the State and convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one month while maintaining the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act.
- The appeal filed by the appellant stood dismissed.
- the High Court was of the opinion that there was an intention to kill the deceased and did not agree with the view of the trial court that though the appellant had some grudge against the deceased, he did not intend to kill him but inflicted only a single injury and the other injuries were caused as a result of scuffle that followed.
- An appeal was made to the Supreme Court.
Judgment
The Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that, “In the present case, there is no evidence at all to the effect that the appellant committed the offence alleged against him on the ground that the deceased is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. To attract the provisions of Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, the sine qua non is that the victim should be a person who belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and that the offence under the Indian Penal Code is committed against him on the basis that such a person belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. In the absence of such ingredients, no offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act arises. In that view of the matter, we think, both the trial court and the High Court missed the essence of this aspect. In these circumstances, the conviction under the aforesaid provision by the trial court as well as by the High Court ought to be set aside.In the result, we reverse the judgment of the High Court in so far as this aspect of the matter is concerned and acquit the appellant of the said charge while we set aside the conviction under Section 302 IPC and restore that of the trial court imposing a punishment of five years for an offence under Section 304, Part II, IPC. It is brought to our notice that the appellant has already been in custody for more than five years now. Therefore he should be set at liberty forthwith.”
The appeal was allowed.
BY: ANKIT RAJPUT