Madhya Pradesh High Court
Deepu Alias Avinash vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 July, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal, Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30277
1 CRA-3104-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 8 th OF JULY, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3104 of 2017
VIKRAM SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Shailendra Singh - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri S K Shrivastava - Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
Shri Khalid Noor Fakhruddin - Advocate for the objector.
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3070 of 2019
DEEPU ALIAS AVINASH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Shailendra Singh - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri S K Shrivastava - Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal
These appeals under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, are filed by the appellants - Vikram Singh and Deepu @
Avinash being aggrieved of the judgment dated 05.07.2017 passed by the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30277
2 CRA-3104-2017
learned Special Judge under Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989, Anuppur (M.P.) in Special case No.42/2015 ( State of
Madhya Pradesh Vs. Vikram Singh and another ), whereby the accused
persons have been convicted under Section 304 Part-II of IPC, but with the
aid of Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for brevity "SC/ST Act"), they have been sentenced to
life imprisonment with fine of Rs.25,000/- each, with default stipulation of
additional R.I. for 6 months.
2. Shri Shailendra Singh, learned counsel for the appellants submits that
the prosecution's case, in short, is that on 28.07.2015, Arun Sen, after closing
his barber shop at around 5:00 PM, came to Chamru Baba (Chamru Baiga) at
Shiv Mandir and after having his dinner, stayed there in the night. Arun Sen
and Chamru Baiga were sleeping inside the temple. When at about 3:00 AM,
Arun Sen's sleep got disturbed when he heard that someone was calling
Baba. When he came out with a torch, he saw Vikram Rana of Kapildhara
and Deepu Singh of Dola, along with one another person, who was wearing
only undergarments was caught hold of and was brought on a motorcycle.
Thereafter, accused persons asked Arun Sen to wake up Chamru Baba, as
they wanted to carry out Jhadphuk of the person who was brought to the
temple. At that time, Baba came out and stated that he does not indulge in
Jhadphuk. The accused persons again insisted to carry out Jhadphuk, but
when Baba refused, then the person was made to sit and the accused persons
started beating him with kicks on his shoulder and body. Then Baba said that
he will carry out Jhadphuk in the morning and went inside his house and all
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30277
3 CRA-3104-2017
three lied in front of the temple.
3. In the morning, at around 5:00 AM, when Arun Sen looked out, then he
saw Vikram Singh and Deepu Singh searching for the person, who was
brought by them. Thereafter, accused persons had gone back. Thereafter,
Arun and Chamru Baba went to take bath and when Chamru Baba came
back, he said that one person was sitting in a pit and his condition was not
good. Then, both of them had gone to that place and narrated the story to one
Son Dada and then to Secretary Rajnish Shukla. Thereafter, the injured was
taken to the Primary Health Center, Bijuri, where he died during treatment.
4. Shri Shailendra Singh, learned counsel for the appellants submits that
the provisions of the SC/ST Act will not be attracted in the present case,
inasmuch as, prior to the amendment, Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act
provides that knowledge alone was not sufficient, but prior to amendment of
26.01.2016, it was provided that a person commits any offence under the
Indian Penal Code punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or
more against a person or property on the ground that such person is a
member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs
to such member, shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and with
fine. It is pointed out that there is no evidence to the effect that the deceased
was beaten or was brought to Chamru Baiga for Jhadphuk knowing the fact
that he was a member of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community.
5. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in case
o f Dinesh @ Buddha Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2006 (3) SCC 771 , which
provides that sine qua non for application of Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30277
4 CRA-3104-2017
Act is that an offence must have been committed against a person on the
ground that such person is a member of the Scheduled Castes or the
Scheduled Tribes. In the instant case no evidence has been led to establish
this requirement. It is not the case of the prosecution that the rape was
committed on the victim since she was a member of a Scheduled Caste. In
the absence of evidence to that effect, Section 3(2)(v) has no application. It is
further held that had Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act been applicable
then by operation of law, the sentence would have been imprisonment for
life and fine.
6. Similarly, reliance is placed on the judgments of the Supreme Court in
Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2000) 3 SCC
557 , Ramdas and others Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 2 SCC 170 and
Patan Jamal Vali Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2021) 16 SCC 225 , to submit
that prior to amendment in Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, there was a
decreased threshold of proving that a crime was committed on the basis of
caste identity, whereas now after amendment mere knowledge is sufficient to
sustain a conviction. Hence, it is prayed that the appellants be acquitted.
7. Shri S.K. Shrivastava, learned Public Prosecutor, in his turn, supports
the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence and submits that no
interference is called for in the same.
8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the
record, PW-1 Arun Sen stated that when Bablu Kol was taken out of the pit,
at that time he was alive and he informed them that Deepu and Vikram had
beaten him with lathi and danda, alleging that he had stolen some angles. In
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30277
5 CRA-3104-2017
Para 4 of his cross-examination, this witness admitted that he had not seen
the accused persons beating deceased Bablu Kol. He stated that he gathered
information from the crowd. In Para 5 of his cross-examination, he further
admitted that when he went to inform the Secretary, he did not disclose that
Bablu had informed them that the accused persons had beaten him.
9. PW-2 Sapna Kol stated that persons of Puri Dafai had informed her that
her husband was beaten by Deepu and Vikram. She further stated that Panna
Lal is her Jeth and Panna Lal in the hospital had informed her that Deepu and
Vikram had killed her husband. However, in paragraph 3 of her cross-
examination, PW-2 Sapna Kol admitted that she had not gone to the hospital
and she did not meet Pannalal in the hospital. Then, on asking of the Court,
this witness stated that it was not Pannalal but Prem Lal who had given her
intimation.
10. PW-3 Hira Singh Maravi proved the caste certificate of deceased Bablu
Kol, which was prepared on 08.12.2015 i.e. after the incident had taken
place.
11. PW-4 Bhojram stated that Bablu was lying injured in the jungle of
Shiv Baba. He received intimation from Rajnish Prasad Shukla. Bablu was
known to him. Bablu was speaking a bit, but his speech was not
comprehensible. He further admitted that Bablu had not informed him as to
who had beaten Bablu.
12. PW-6 Ramlal Kol stated in his cross-examination that Bablu had
informed him that Vikram and Deepu had beaten him. He further stated that
Bablu told him that he was beaten on the charge of theft of angles. He further
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30277
6 CRA-3104-2017
admitted in paragraph 3 that Monu and Rajnish had reached prior to him to
the place of the incident.
13. PW-7 Mandal Kol stated that Bablu Kol was brought in a jeep and he
accompanied them in the jeep. He further stated that Bablu had not said
anything in regard to the appellants either to Ramlal or Pannalal.
14. PW-8 Deepak stated that though Bablu was talking, but his speech was
incomprehensible.
15. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Patan Jamal Vali (supra) has held as
under:-
"58. The issue as to whether the offence was committed
against a person on the ground that such person is a member of an
SC or ST or such property belongs to such member is to be
established by the prosecution on the basis of the evidence at the
trial. We agree with the Sessions Judge that the prosecution's case
would not fail merely because PW 1 did not mention in her
statement to the police that the offence was committed against her
daughter because she was a Scheduled Caste woman. However,
there is no separate evidence led by the prosecution to show that
the accused committed the offence on the basis of the caste
identity of PW 2.
While it would be reasonable to presume that the accused
knew the caste of PW 2 since village communities are tightly knit
and the accused was also an acquaintance of PW 2's family, the
knowledge by itself cannot be said to be the basis of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30277
7 CRA-3104-2017
commission of offence, having regard to the language of Section
3(2)(v) as it stood at the time when the offence in the present case
was committed. As we have discussed above, due to the
intersectional nature of oppression PW 2 faces, it becomes difficult
to establish what led to the commission of offence - whether it
was her caste, gender or disability. This highlights the limitation
of a provision where causation of a wrongful act arises from a
single ground or what we refer to as the single axis model.
59. It is pertinent to mention that Section 3(2)(v) was
amended by the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015, which came
into effect on 26-1-2016. The words "on the ground of" under
Section 3(2)(v) have been substituted with "knowing that such
person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe".
This has decreased the threshold of proving that a crime was
committed on the basis of the caste identity to a threshold where
mere knowledge is sufficient to sustain a conviction. Section 8
which deals with presumptions as to offences was also amended to
include clause (c) to provide that if the accused was acquainted
with the victim or his family, the court shall presume that the
accused was aware of the caste or tribal identity of the victim
unless proved otherwise. The amended Section 8 reads as follows:
"8. Presumption as to offences.--In a prosecution for an
offence under this Chapter, if it is proved that-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30277
8 CRA-3104-2017
(a) the accused rendered any financial assistance in relation
to the offences committed by a person accused of, or reasonably
suspected of, committing, an offence under this Chapter, the
Special Court shall presume, unless the contrary is proved, that
such person had abetted the offence;
(b) a group of persons committed an offence under this
Chapter and if it is proved that the offence committed was a sequel
to any existing dispute regarding land or any other matter, it shall
be presumed that the offence was committed in furtherance of the
common intention or in prosecution of the common object.
(c) the accused was having personal knowledge of the
victim or his family, the Court shall presume that the accused was
aware of the caste or tribal identity of the victim, unless the
contrary is proved."
60. The Parliament Standing Committee Report on
Atrocities Against Women and Children has observed that, "high
acquittal rate motivates and boosts the confidence of dominant and
powerful communities for continued perpetration" and
recommends inclusion of provisions of the SC & ST Act while
registering cases of gendered violence against women from the SC
& ST communities. However, as we have noted, one of the ways
in which offences against SC & ST women fall through the cracks
is due to the evidentiary burden that becomes almost impossible to
meet in cases of intersectional oppression. This is especially the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30277
9 CRA-3104-2017
case when courts tend to read the requirement of "on the ground"
under Section 3(2)(v) as "only on the ground of".
The current regime under the SC & ST Act, post the
amendment, has facilitated the conduct of an intersectional
analysis under the Act by replacing the causation requirement
under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act with a knowledge requirement
making the regime sensitive to the kind of evidence that is likely
to be generated in cases such as these.
61. However, since Section 3(2)(v) was amended and clause
(c) of Section 8 was inserted by Act 1 of 2016 with effect from
26-1-2016 these amendments would not be applicable to the case
at hand. The offence in the present case has taken place before the
amendment, on 31-3-2011. Therefore, we hold that the evidence in
the present case does not establish that the offence in the present
case was committed on the ground that such person is a member
of an SC or ST. The conviction under Section 3(2)(v) would
consequently have to be set aside."
16. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman
(supra) has held as under:-
"Section 3(2)(v) of the Act provides that whoever, not being
a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, commits
any offence under the Penal Code, 1860 punishable with
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30277
10 CRA-3104-2017
imprisonment for a term of ten years or more against a person or
property on the ground that such person is a member of a
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to
such member, shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and
with fine. 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 Penal Code, 1860 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."
17. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ramdas and others (supra) has held
that:-
"At the outset we may observe that there is no evidence
whatsoever to prove the commission of offence under Section 3(2)
(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30277
11 CRA-3104-2017
Atrocities) Act, 1989. The mere fact that the victim happened to
be a girl belonging to a Scheduled Caste does not attract the
provisions of the Act. Apart from the fact that the prosecutrix
belongs to the Pardhi community, there is no other evidence on
record to prove any offence under the said enactment. The High
Court has also not noticed any evidence to support the charge
under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 and was perhaps persuaded to affirm the
conviction on the basis that the prosecutrix belongs to a Scheduled
Caste community. The conviction of the appellants under Section
3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989 must, therefore, be set aside."
18. In view of the above, in the present case, none of the prosecution
witnesses have stated that Bablu was beaten on account of he being a
member of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe community. Thus, in the light
of judgments of the Supreme Court in Patan Jamal Vali (supra), Masumsha
Hasanasha Musalman (supra) Ramdas and others (supra) and Dinesh @
Buddha (supra), in absence of there being any evidence that deceased Bablu
Kol was beaten because of his belonging to a particular community, the
provisions of Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act will not be attracted and,
therefore, the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act is not made
out.
19. Thus, conviction of the appellants under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30277
12 CRA-3104-2017
Act is hereby set aside. However, conviction of the appellants under Section
304 Part-II of IPC is affirmed and they are sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment of 10 years with the fine as imposed by the learned trial Court
i.e. Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each. In case of
default of payment of fine amount, each of the appellants shall undergo
additional R.I. for 6 months.
20. In the result, impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated
05.07.2017 passed by the learned Special Judge under Scheduled
Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Anuppur (M.P.)
in Special case No.42/2015, is modified to the extent indicated above and
accordingly, the criminal appeals filed by the appellants are allowed in part
and disposed of. The case property be disposed off in terms of the judgment
of the trial Court. Record of the trial Court be sent back. Pending
application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
pp
