Sudamati W/O Nandkumar Kade vs State Of Maharashtra
2005 Latest Caselaw 1072 Bom

JUDGMENT

V.G. Palshikar, J.

1. By this appeal, the appellant has challenged her conviction under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The facts giving rise to the case, state briefly, are that, the accused and the victim both reside in the same village. On 15.4.1992, at about 7.00 a.m. in the morning, people of the village had gathered around the handpump to carry water. Both accused and the complainant victim were present there, While going away, the pitcher of the complainant touched the pitcher of the accused and, therefore, the accused abused the complainant. The abuse was obviously in public view and was humiliating the victim, belonging to the Scheduled Caste. On the complaint of the victim, investigation was conducted and accused, along with several others, was prosecuted. The prosecution examined 6 witnesses to prove its case and the learned trial Judge, on appreciation of the evidence as led, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the assault, He, therefore, acquitted all other accused persons except the appellant herein. The learned trial Judge convicted the appellant under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities ) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Atrocities Act for short) and sentenced her to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. It is this order which is challenged in this appeal.

2. With the assistance of learned counsel for the appellant and the learned A.P.P., I have reappreciated the evidence on record and reconsidered the findings as arrived by the learned trial Judge. It is the submission on behalf of the appellant that even if all the facts are accepted as proved, as was done by the learned trial Judge, the conviction under Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act is unsustainable in law because there is no proof on record that the accused had the knowledge of the fact that the victim complainant belonged to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The submission is that the Atrocities Act is a special enactment repealing the earlier enactment viz. Protection of Civil Rights Act of 1955. It is enacted to curb the unwarranted atrocities on the members of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. It was a reformative legislation aimed at preventing atrocities on people belonging to a particular category merely because they belong to that category. Therefore, after the enactment of this legislation, if a person commits an assault, he is liable to penal action prescribed under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, but if he knows that the person who is assaulted belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, then he will have to pay additional penalty for assaulting the member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Therefore, the mens rea or intention is integral part of the offences under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and in addition it must be proved by the prosecution that the accused knew the caste or tribe of the complainant.

3. According to learned A.P.P., the Act is intended to protect the members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It is to prevent atrocities on them. Therefore, what is necessary for conviction under Section 3 is the fact of assault or commission of any of the offences mentioned in Section 3. Knowledge is immaterial. We have to consider these submissions in the light of the enactment as legislated by the Parliament of India

4. Untouchability has been practiced for centuries and which is a stigma on the otherwise homogenous and unblemished cultural ethos of our country. The practicing of untouchability has been a subject of great interest and the social movement for generations. Several leaders, irrespective of their personal castes have been preaching abolition of untouchability. To a great extent, this drive against untouchability was achieved successfully but it was restricted to the domain of Urban India. Rural India continued to reel under the unwarranted burden of untouchability. It was, therefore, that when the Constitution of India was framed, the framers of the Constitution took definite notice of this eclipse on otherwise good society.

5. Therefore , while defining fundamental rights of the citizens of India, in part III of the Constitution, certain rights were specifically added and defined. Article 14 provided for equality before law and Article 15 was enacted as a fundamental right of our citizens. Prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of religipn, race, caste, sex or place of birth, was enacted requiring that the State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them, Clause (2) of Article 15 specifically prohibited and proscribed practicing of untouchability. It mandated that no citizen shall, on the grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them, be subject to any disability, liability, restriction or condition with regard to access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and places of public entertainment, or the use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads and places of public resort maintained wholly or partly out of State funds or dedicated to the use of the general public. Article 16 provides equality of opportunity to all citizens relating to employment and prescribed that no citizen shall, on grounds only of religion race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them, be ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect of any employment or office under the State.

6. Then comes Article 17, which constitutionally abolishes untouchability and its practice in any form it became after the enactment of Constitution, therefore, a forbidden act.

7. In spite of these constitutional provisions and protection, the atrocities continued. The civil rights of fundamental rights given by the Constitution continued to be trampled and the Parliament of India was, therefore, required to legislate in 1955, another enactment called the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955. This was legislated for the avowed object which is depicted in the preamble. It reads thus :

An Act to prescribe punishment for the preaching and practice of "Untouchability", for the enforcement of any disability arising thereform and for matters connected therewith.

It was, therefore, a legislation by the Parliament of India to see that the fundamental rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution are effectively implemented with recourse to this enactment. It made practice of untouchability in any form an offence, and prescribed punishment therefor.

8. Unfortunately even this enactment could not get the necessary results. Therefore, in the year 1989 the Parliament again legislated the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It defined the atrocities that may be committed, it not only made this punishable and cognizable offences but also orated a machinery for enforcement of those rights and for the purposes of effectively implementing the provisions of the Act. Jurisdictional aspects are clarified. The trials were being conducted by a Special Judge and all these offences were to be tried by that Court. The strictness of this Act is evident from several provisions contained therein. For instance, Section 7 of the Act provides that where a person has been convicted of any offences punishable under this Chapter, the Special Court may, in addition to awarding any punishment, by order in writing, declare that any property, movable or immovable or both, belonging to the person, which has been used for the commission of that offence shall stand forfeited to Government, This legislation has to be read in light of the amendment effected to the Indian Penal Code, whereby several sections providing for forfeiture of property were deleted.

9. Section 8 provides for certain presumptions. Section 14 provides for creation of special Courts. Section 18 makes Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code not applicable in cases involving any person on an accusation of having committed an offence under this Act. The right of seeking anticipatory bail was taken away in relation to offences defined under the Act. Section 19 provided for non-application of Section 360 of the Criminal Procedure Code to the offences of convicts under the Act. The convict is a person convicted under the Penal Code or any other statute can get the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. Even this benefit is denied to a convict under this Act. Section 20 gave overriding effect to this Act. From the framing of this Act, it will, therefore, be seen that strictest possible measures were enacted to prevent atrocities against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

10. It is no doubt a social reformatory legislation, but at the same time it is very strict and penal legislation. By now it is an accepted principle of law in Indian jurisprudence that any penal legislation or action is to be considered strictly.

11. I have to keep this history of legislation in mind while interpreting the provisions of Section 3 of the Act. Because the offence held to be proved by the learned trial Judge is under Section 3 of the Act. Section 3 of the Act reads thus :

3. Punishment for offences of atrocities - (1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe.

(i)       forces a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe to drink or eat any inedible or obnoxious substance.
 

 (ii)acts with intent to cause injury, insult or annoyance to any member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe by dumping excreta, waste matter, carcasses or any other obnoxious substance in his premises or neighbourhood. 
 

(iii) forcibly removes clothes from the person of a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or parades him or makes with painted face or body or commits any similar act which is derogatory to human dignity; 
 

 (iv)  Wrongfully occupies or cultivates any land owned by, or allotted to, or notified by any competent authority to be allotted to, a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or gets the land allotted to him transferred, 
 

 (v)      Wrongfully dispossesses a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe from his land or premises or interferes with the enjoyment of his rights over any land, premises or water; 
 

 (vi)     compels or entices a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe to do 'begar' or other similar forms of forced or bonded labour other than any compulsory service for public purposes imposed by Government; 
 

 (vii)    forces or intimidates a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe not to vote or to vote a particular candidate to vote in a manner other than that provided by law; 
 

 (viii)   institutes false, malicious or vexatious suit or criminal or other legal proceedings against a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe; 
 

  (ix)     gives any false or frivolous information to any public servant and thereby causes such public servant to use his lawful power to the injury or annoyance of a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe; 
 

 (x)      intentionally insults or intimidates with intent or humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view; 
 

(xi)     assaults or uses force to any woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe with intent to dishonour or outrage her modesty
 

 (xii)   being in a position to dominate the will of a woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and uses that position to exploit her sexually to which she would have otherwise agreed; 
 

(xiii)  corrupts or fouls the water of any spring, reservoir or any other source ordinarily used by members of the Scheduled Caste or the Scheduled Tribe so as to render it less fit for the purpose for which it is ordinarily used; 
 

(xiv)   denies a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe any customary right of passage to a place of public resort or obstructs such member as to prevent from using or having access to place of public resort to which other members of public or any section thereof have a right to use or access to; 
 

(xv)    forces or causes a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe to leave his house, village or other place of residence, 
 

shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine....
 

It will be seen from the abovequoted section that the offence is committed only by a person who is not a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. By specific provision in Section 3(1), such actions between them are kept under the normal legislation applicable to all the citizens of India. This aspect came up for consideration of this Court in a Writ petition filed by a complainant seeking a writ of mandamus directing the police to record his complaint under the provisions of this Act. A Division Bench of this Court, deciding that Writ Petition bearing Criminal Writ Petition No. 49/2001, on 20-4-2001 held that the wordings in Section 3(x), "whoever not being a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe", makes it precondition that the person committing the alleged offence must not belong to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. It was held there that in the report filed at the police station, there ought to have been some averment indicating that Shri Kailas Gorantyal does not belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. In the absence of such averment or any other material before the police for coming to the conclusion that the accused named in the said report does not belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, the offence under Section 3 of the said Act cannot be registered. This Court, therefore, laid down that even for registering an offence under this Act, the complaint must have an averment that the accused does not belong to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.

12. In my opinion, with deepest respect, this judgment lays down the basic law. Apart from the fact that it is binding on me, in all humility, I accept the reasonings given by the Division Bench for so holding that the provisions of Section 3 can be brought into operation only when there is an averment in the complaint regarding the fact that the accused does not belong to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or there must be some other material in the complaint or with it or otherwise brought to the notice of the authorities before cognizance of the complaint under Section 3 can be taken.

13. In my opinion, the present case raises the corollary flowing out of this aspect. I have noticed about the legislative history of this Act, why it was enacted, when it was enacted, how the protection of prevention of backward community were made, implementation was sought and having seen that the Act of 1955 also did not give the desired results, then the Atrocities Act of 1989 was enacted. The strictness of the provisions of this Act is already stated above. It is also obvious and I repeat, it is a principle of statutory interpretation that penal statutes have to be strictly construed. In my opinion, it would be unnecessary to cite or note judgments either of this Court or of the Supreme Court of India to bring home this principle of jurisdiction.

14. It is, therefore necessary in my opinion to interpret the provision of Section 3 being a penal section very strictly. I propose to approach the interpretation keeping in mind these canons of statutory interpretations. I would like to consider the provisions of Section 3, which bring out different aspects of atrocities that can be practiced against the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and, therefore, are made penal.

15. Section 3(1) of the Atrocities Act has several items, each of which is a separate offence. I will consider each of them to analyse these provisions and to find out whether plain reading of these provisions spell out necessity of mens rea for holding any person guilty under the provisions of this Act and whether the knowledge of the victim's caste or tribe is essential ingredient of the offence.

16. Item (i) makes it an offence when a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is forced to drink or eat any inedible or obnoxious substance. Any person can be forced to eat anything. Making a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe to do it is made an offence. In order to bring home the guilt, therefore, it must be proved that the accused, who forced such person to drink or eat any inedible or obnoxious substance, had the knowledge that the person belonged to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Intention and knowledge become inseparable part of the offence. Without proving both, the conviction, in my opinion, is not possible.

17. The second item makes it an offence when any person, with intent to cause injury, insult or annoyance to any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by dumping excreta, waste matter, carcasses or any other obnoxious substance in his premises or neighbourhood. Now, analysis of this item is necessary because it begins with intent to cause. Intention to cause annoyance etc. has to be proved, but the question is whether the knowledge that the person on whom such atrocity is committed belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or not must be available and proved and the answer, in my opinion, will have to be "yes". A person may throw the waste into a premises or neighbourhood, he may be a resident of that village, town, city, he may be outsider, he may be anybody and it may so happen that a person may throw waste in the hut or in the neighbourhood of a person belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and unless it is proved that he knew that the premises or the neighbouhood belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, holding guilty that person liable under this act would not be possible or permissible in law.

18. The Third item makes parading or defacing members of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, It provides that whoever forcibly removes clothes from the person of a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or parades him or makes with painted face or body or commits any similar act which is derogatory to human dignity. In all other cases, each of this doing would amount an offence under the Indian Penal Code. It is made specially a stricter offence when it is committed against a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. I have to consider the necessity of mens rea knowledge of the accused for such offence to illustrate, a man sees a woman being intimidated or insulted in the street by a man. He, therefore, catches hold of that man insulting the woman. The conviction under this item is not possible if the knowledge of the person that the assailant was belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is proved. A man, catches hold of the man assaulting the woman, sues him, blackens his face and parades him on the street as a person unwarrantedly outraging the modesty of the woman. A conviction under this item will not be permissible unless it is proved that the man had the knowledge that the assailant of the woman was belonging to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. In my opinion, therefore, even in this item also it is also necessary for the prosecution to prove that the accused did which is penalised under this item after having the knowledge that the person to whom done this act is a person belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.

19. Item (iv) is wrongfully occupying or cultivating any land owned by, or allotted to, or notified by any competent authority to be allotted to, a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or getting the land allotted to him transferred to him. This is making an offence which otherwise is a civil dispute. A person is exposed to a penalty for the crime when he wrongfully occupies or cultivates any land owned by, or allotted to, or notified by any competent authority to be allotted to, member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or gets the land allotted to him. A group of persons belonging to the Nomadic Tribes moving from village to village come in a village and camp on a land for whatever period they want to stay in the village. That land happens to be belonging to a person who is a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, but unless knowledge of the Nomadic Tribals is proved, the conviction of those Nomadic Tribals for occupation of the land for whatsoever period will be unsustainable in law. There is, thus, distinction made by the legislation and it has been provided wherever necessary that it shall be an intent to cause some injury. Wherever it is not as in this item (iv), mere wrongful occupation of land belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is made an offence. The offence is complete the moment occupation is made and belonging of that land in whatever right to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is proved. Conviction would not be possible unless requisite knowledge of accused that the land belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is proved. This is, in my opinion, conscious exercise of legislative intent to provide inbuilt safeguard from unwarranted or incorrect use of the penal powers given by this enactment.

20. Item (v) deals with wrongful dispossession of a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Here again the moment dispossession is proved and the dispossession is proved to be that of a person belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, the offence is complete. Take a ease where a bully from another village comes into one village, sees a hutment and couple of persons living there. He throws them out and starts living in that hut. He will be committing an offence prescribed under this item only if he knows that the persons thrown out by him belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, otherwise it would be offence of trespass as prescribed under the Indian Penal Code. A trespass against the rights of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe person is, therefore, made an offence to bring home the charge under this item, it has to be proved that the person committing an act of trespass had a knowledge that he is committing trespass on a right and land belonging to a person who is belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, Here also proof of knowledge by whatever means, legal of courses is necessary.

21. That takes me to item (vi). It provides that whoever compels or entices a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe to do 'begar' or other similar forms of forced or bonded labour other than any compulsory service for public purposes imposed by Government, commits an offence. This item, in my opinion, is a classical example to the point how knowledge of accused is essential. In mega cities people kidnap children and use them in beggary. Take a case where one such criminal minded person goes to a primary school and rounds up 10 children there for the purpose of putting them to beggary. Apart from the fact that he is exposed to other offences, conviction under this item is not possible unless it is proved that he knew that the children to whom he has kidnapped belong to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. His intention was clear, he wanted children to be used as beggars, for which different punishment under different enactments is provided. What has been enacted in relation to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes is, therefore, something which will be an offence only if the knowledge is proved.

22. Item (vii) deals with force or intimidation to vote or not to vote for a particular candidate. Here also it is obvious that a voter is being forced do to something or not to do something. It may be offence under Representation of People Act, but to force a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe to do that is an offence under this Act, Take a case of a candidate moving around a voters' list forcing everybody to vote for him or face dire consequences. Unless knowledge of that man is proved that a person in that list of voters belonged to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, conviction under this clause will not be permissible. Same is the case of item (viii), which makes false and malicious or vexatious prosecution or suit agaist a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.

23. Item (ix) deals with giving false or frivolous information to public servant in relation to a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Here knowledge of accused need not be proved as it deals with giving false information in regard to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes only and it cannot be done without knowledge.

24. That takes me to item (x) Which is involved in the present case. It reads as under:

3(1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,

...

...

(x) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent or humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view;

This action in fact is the most repented action. In spite of these legislations which have been practiced in rural India to abuse or insult a person merely because he belongs to a particular caste or community. It is to curb this tendency that this clause is included. Intention to insult or intimidate must, therefore, exist intention to humiliate also must exist. Here I would like to refer, with advantage, a judgment delivered by this Court in 1980 under the provisions of protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955. At that time, the offence was under Section 7 abusing a person with reference to his caste for practicing or preaching untouchability. Learned Single Judge of this Court held that the enactment was intended to prescribe punishment for preaching and practice of untouchability and, therefore, an abuse whether intentional or otherwise, not connected with preaching and practice of untouchability and, therefore an abuse whether intentional or otherwise, not connected with preaching and practice of untouchability, will not be an offence under Section 7(1)(d) of that Act. All provisions of Protection of Civil Rights Act were, as noticed by me above, legislated to prevent practice of touchability and the dictum of this judgment, therefore, is that the abuse with reference to accused must be connected with practicing or preaching untouchability to be an offence. Similarly, in my opinion, in order to make or sustain a conviction under Section 3, knowledge that the person against whom the offence is committed, belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is necessary.

25. This fact of the accused having a knowledge can be proved in several manners. It can be stated by the appellant or complainant in his deposition. It can be proved before the Court by producing any document or any evidence, oral or documentary, which proves knowledge of the accused regarding caste of the complainant. It will, therefore, be seen from the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Anant Vasantlal Sambre v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. Writ Petition No. 49 of 2001, dated 20-4-2001 and the Single Bench judgment reported in 1980 MH.L.J. 833, Laxman Jay ram Shant v. State of Maharashtra that a complaint in relation to commission of an offence under the Act may not be registered if the complaint does not positively indicate that the accused person in the complaint does not belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. It is made clear by this judgment that such averment need not be in the complaint itself. The judgment further permits leading of evidence to that effect before the police and then mandates that in the absence of such thing, registration of complaint may not be possible. Today under this enactment, therefore, a complaint of commission of any offence under the Act i.e. Section 3 may not be registered unless it indicates proof of the fact that the accused does not belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. This is laid down for the simple reason that it cannot be used indiscriminatory anywhere. It cannot be used in a quarrel between member belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. It is intended to proscribe any atrocity or person belonging to this caste by persons not belonging thereto. Any quarrel between people of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes is taken out and is covered by normal law. This is a special legislation and, therefore, the dictum of above judgment. In my opinion, if this is the intent of the legislation, the proof of knowledge must be held as necessary to sustain a conviction under Section 3 for any of the offences mentioned therein. But for such proof, it may be an offence under the Penal Code or some other enactment. To make it an offence under this enactment it must be proved that the accused had the knowledge of the fact that the complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. That being a legal position, in my opinion the Act and the provisions thereunder should be read accordingly. There is no such evidence in any manner in the present case to show that the accused had the knowledge of the fact that the victim belonged to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. It is not, therefore, possible for me to uphold the conviction as recorded by the learned Special Judge.

26. Another aspect, of which I wish to take notice since I am laying down the scope and extent of Section 3, these offences are committed predominantly in rural areas. It is possible that in the villages or hamlets or small towns almost everybody knows the caste of everybody else. But in my opinion, the Court of law cannot take judicial notice of such knowledge and, therefore, the requirement of proving such knowledge in the accused is necessary and burden of proving it is on the complainant. It is also necessary to note that this burden of proving that the accused had the knowledge of the Caste or tribe to which the complainant belongs falls on the complainant and consequently it is necessary to point out in details how this burden can be discharged.

It can be discharged but proving or straightly any of the following;

i)      A statement on oath in the deposition of the complainant that the accused knew the caste or tribe of the complainant. 
 

ii)     A statement on oath in deposition of a witness saying that the accused knew the caste or tribe of the complainant.
 

  iii)   Proof in the shape about the caste or tribe of the complainant.
 

27. If this is done, the burden is discharged. It is then for the accused if he says that he did not have knowledge to prove how he did not have the knowledge. After an averment is made that the accused knew the caste or tribe of the complainant, if the accused wants to contend that this allegation is not correct, he knows that the caste or tribe of the complainant is something else than what he alleges. Then it will be for the accused to prove what that caste of the complainant, according to him, is.

28. In my opinion, holding that the complainant must state that the accused had the knowledge of complainant's caste or tribe, is not adding anything to the provisions of the Act as disclosed by Section 3 thereof. This section makes penal certain actions. All that has been held by me is that those offences are penal and a person can be penalised for commission thereof only if it is proved that the person committing it knew that this against whom he is alleged to have committed it, did belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The requirement of knowledge is part of proof of the offence having been committed. It does not in any manner alter the rights and liabilities created under Section 3.

29. In the case in hand, there is no such proof in any form, from which it can be held that the accused had the knowledge that the complainant belonged to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and consequently it is not possible to sustain the order of conviction. In the result, the appeal succeeds and allowed. The order of conviction and sentence is set aside. The accused is already on bail. Her bail bonds are cancelled.