The Karnataka High Court has reaffirmed that the caste of the child born in an intern-caste marriage is to be determined on the basis of whether or not he/ she gets met with the deprivations and humilities suffered by the particular lower caste in the society.
The single-judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed that that the offshoot of wedlock between the SC/ST female and a male belonging to forward community cannot claim SC/ST status, unless he/she demonstrates that he/she has suffered the disabilities suffered by the members of the community of his/her mother.
Brief Facts of the Case:
The prosecution, on behalf of the respondent one Sri Ramesh Gavisiddappa Ginageri, puts forth that the petitioners abused the complainant by taking the name of the caste (SC) along with assaulting
and threating him in a public setting. When the complaint was registered under Sections 323, 505, 506 read with Sections 34 of the IPC and 3(1)(10) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 by the respondents with the District and Sessions Judge, the petitioners sought relief under Section 227 of the CrPC.
However, the same was rejected holding that there was prima facie material against the petitioners to continue the trial. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioners approached the Karnataka High court under Section 482 of the CrPC. The petitioners differ on the facts that the respondent does not belong to the Scheduled Cast since only his mother belongs to the SC community and his father belongs to an upper-cast which is outside the purview of the SC and ST (POA) Act, 1989. Moreover, they claim that the incident did not take place in a public setting and there was no assault or intimidation in the present case.
High Court's Observation:
The three key question for Court's determination, in the preset appeal were:
(i) Whether the mother of the complainant loses her status of being a member of Scheduled Caste the moment she married the father of the complainant who belongs to a forward caste?
(ii) Whether the complainant being a son of a member of Scheduled Caste/mother and a forward caste/father would acquire the status as member belonging to ‘Scheduled Caste’?
(iii) Do the impugned proceedings warrant any interference?
The judges relied on the case of Rajendra Shrivastava v State of Maharashtra and reaffirmed that firstly, a woman belonging to Scheduled Caste will not lose her caste status as one belonging to Scheduled Caste after getting married to a man belonging to a forward caste.
The court further relied on Rameshbhai Dabhai Naika Vs. State of Gujarat & Others, 2012 Latest Caselaw 50 SC to determine if the complainant would be deemed to belong to SC. Whether the respondent, the son of a forward-caste male and a female belonging to SC, would belong to SC is a question of fact to be proved him that he still belongs to SC, in view of continuance of deprivations and humilities that he suffers in the society.
However, in the present case, the respondent cannot invoke the act there is no evidence or documents produced, to demonstrate that he continues the disability of being a member of Scheduled Caste in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court. Assault and intimidation were considered independently under the IPC by the court since the act could not be invoked.
The criminal petition was allowed and the order passed by the District and Sessions Judge was quashed and consequently, the application filed by the petitioners under Section 227 28 of the CrPc. before the District and Sessions Judge, Koppal is allowed.
Case Title: BHIMAPPA JANTAKAL @ BHIMANNA and Ors. vs STATE OF KARNATAKA and Ors.
Case Details: Criminal Petition No.101825 of 2019
Coram: Justice M. Nagaprasanna
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
