[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajkumar @ Dau vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 April, 2026
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal, Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:27164
1 CRA-3208-2016
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 7 th OF APRIL, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3208 of 2016
RAJKUMAR @ DAU
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shivam Chhalotre - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Ajay Tamrakar - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal
This appeal is filed being aggrieved of the judgment dated 05/10/2016
passed by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) District Hoshangabad (MP) in S.T. No.374/2015,
whereby learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as
under :-
Conviction u/s Imprisonment RI Fine amount In lieu of
342 of IPC RI for 6 months - -
376(2)(i) of IPC RI for 10 years Rs.5000/- RI for 1 year
376(2)(n) of IPC RI for 10 years Rs.5000/- RI for 1 year
506(Part-II) of IPC RI for 3 years Rs.500/- RI for 1 month
3/4 of POCSO Act RI for 10 years Rs.5000/- RI for 1 year
3(1)(12) of SC/ST Act RI for 3 years Rs.1000/- RI for 2 months
3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act Life imprisonment Rs.5000/ RI for 1 year
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:27164
2 CRA-3208-2016
All sentences to be run concurrently.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is confining his
arguments only in regard to conviction under the provisions of Sections 3(2)
(v) and 3(1)(12) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989. It is submitted that provisions of Sections 3(2)(v) and
3(1)(12) of SC/ST Act will not be attracted, especially Section 3(2)(v) of
SC/ST Act in the light of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of
Patan Jamal Vali vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2021 SC
2190. Reading from paragraphs 58 onwards, it is submitted that prior to
amendment to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, which came into force w.e.f. 18/01/2016 requirements to
prove the allegation that offence was committed not for any other reason but
only for the reason that the victim was a member of SC/ST falls on the
prosecution and, therefore, it is submitted that offence under Section 3(2)(v)
of SC/ST Act, is not made out.
3. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, learned Government Advocate for the State in his
terms submits that appellant being closely associated with the family of the
victim was always having knowledge of the fact that victim belongs to
Scheduled Tribes community and, therefore, no leniency is called for.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the
record, the case of the prosecution in short is that on 12/08/2015 victim was
at her home. When in the morning she came out of her house to attend
school, her neighbourer appellant-Rajkumar, who was residing with his wife
Shakunbai, asked victim to come to his house. He stated that she should
bring a packet of milk which she brought and gave to Rajkumar. Thereafter,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:27164
3 CRA-3208-2016
Rajkumar called the victim inside his home, bolted the house from inside and
requested her not to go to school. Thereafter, asked her to undress and then
violated her privacy on 2-3 occasions. Thereafter, he had threatened the
victim to not to reveal her story to anybody and threatened her with dire
consequences. Thereafter, when she could gather courage, she narrated her
story then FIR was lodged. Investigation was carried out, charge-sheet was
filed, appellant had abjured his guilt and trial was conducted. The appellant
has been convicted and sentenced as above.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that under similar facts and
circumstances, the Supreme Court in case of Patan Jamal Vali (supra) , in
Paras 58 to 61 has held thus :-
"58. The issue as to whether the offence was committed against
a person on the ground that such person is a member of a 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 PW1 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 PW2.
While it would be reasonable to presume that the accused knew
the caste of PW2 since village communities are tightly knit and the
accused was also an acquaintance of PW2's family, the knowledge
by itself cannot be said to be the basis of the 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 PW2 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:27164
4 CRA-3208-2016
t h e Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015, which came into effect on 26
January 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
(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 SC & ST Act while
registering cases of gendered violence against women from 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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:27164
5 CRA-3208-2016
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
January 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 March 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 a SC or ST. The conviction under Section 3(2)(v)
would
consequently have to be set aside. "
6. Similarly, the Supreme Court in Khuman Singh vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No.1283 of 2019 arising out of SLP
(Crl)No.6647 of 2018 dated 27/08/2019, in Paras 12, 13 & 14 has held thus
:-
"12. From the evidence and other materials on record, there is
nothing to suggest that the offence was committed by the appellant
only because the deceased belonged to a Scheduled Caste. Both
the trial court and the High Court recorded the finding that the
appellant-accused scolded the deceased Veer Singh that he
belongs to "Khangar" Caste and how he could drive away the
cattle of the person belonging to "Thakur" Caste and therefore, the
appellant-accused has committed the offence under Section 3(2)
(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act. Section 3 of the said Act deals with the
punishments for offences of atrocities 9 committed under the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989. Section 3(2)(v) of the Act reads as under:-
"Section 3 - Punishments for offences of atrocities -
(1) .........
(2) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Schedule Tribe, -
.......
(v) commits any offence under the Indian Penal Code punishable
with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more against a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:27164
6 CRA-3208-2016
person or property knowing 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".
The object of Section 3(2)(v) of the Act is to provide for enhanced
punishment with regard to the offences under the Indian Penal
Code punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or
more against a person or property knowing that the victim is a
member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe.
13. In Dinesh alias Buddha v. State of Rajasthan (2006) 3 SCC
771, the Supreme Court held as under:-
"15. Sine qua non for application of Section 3(2)(v) is that an
offence must have been committed against a person on the ground
that such person is a member of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes. In the instant case no evidence has been led to establish
this requirement. It is not case of the prosecution 10 that the rape
was committed on the victim since she was a member of
Scheduled Caste. In the absence of evidence to that effect, 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."
7. Thus, it is held by the Supreme Court that offence must be such so as
to attract the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, the offenec
must have been committed against the person on the ground that such person
is a member of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes.
8. In the present case, we find that no such evidence being adduced to
show that offence was committed against the victim only because she
belongs to Scheduled Tribes community.
9. Same is the ratio of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Patan
Jamal Vali (supra), wherein it is held that post amendment, the provisions
contained in the Atrocities Act has facilitated the conduct of an intersectional
analysis under the act by replacing the causation requirement under Section
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:27164
7 CRA-3208-2016
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.
But prior to amendment, such knowledge requirement was much broader and
the prosecution was required to prove that particular offence was committed
"only on the ground of" a person belonging to Scheduled Castes &
Scheduled Tribes category.
10. Since this "only on the ground of" requirement is not fulfilled in the
present case which is tacitly admitted by the learned Public Prosecutor, we
are of the opinion that conviction of the appellant with the aid of Section
3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act in the light of the judgment of Supreme Court in Patan
Jamal Vali (Supra) so also in Khuman Singh (Supra) being not made out.
Conviction of the appellant under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act is set aside
and the appeal to that extent is allowed.
11. With the aforesaid observation, this appeal is partly allowed and
disposed of.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
mc
