The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act cannot be invoked just because the accused knew the victim's caste status, the Chhattisgarh High Court has reaffirmed. It was further stated that the prosecution would need to present independent proof that the victim's victimisation due to caste prejudice was the cause of the violent act. The Special Judge's conviction verdict against the appellants Bholaram and Ramkumar was being challenged in court. It was claimed that the Appellants harassed the victim and threatened to kill her because they knew she was a student in Class IX and a member of a scheduled tribe. The Police filed a charge sheet against the appellants under Sections 341, 354, and 363 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act based on this incidence.
In the instant case titled Jagsen v. State Of Chhattisgarh, the issue raised before the Chhattisgarh High Court was:
Whether the order passed by the special judge against the appellants valid?
With regard to the issue, the court held that the offence under Sections 341 and 354 IPC on the basis of the caste identity of the victim could not be proven by the prosecution. There is no separate evidence led on behalf of the prosecution to establish that the appellants committed the offence on the basis of the caste identity of the victim.
It stated while it can be presumed that the appellants knew that the victim belonged to a scheduled tribe community as the victim and the accused persons were the residents of the same village, mere knowledge of the same cannot be said to be the basis of a conviction for the offence and it had to be proved by the prosecution.
The court categorically stated that:
“They (Appellants) knew that the victim was a member of Scheduled Tribe community...but mere knowledge of the same cannot be said to be the basis of conviction...it was entirely for the prosecution to establish and prove that the offence was committed just because the victim was a member of Scheduled Tribe community...There is no separate evidence led on behalf of the prosecution...."
Hence, the appeal was allowed in part whereas the conviction under Sections 341 and 354 IPC was upheld.