E-Paper
Allahabad high court sets aside conviction under SC/ST Act
Police officer not below rank of deputy superintendent of police must investigate offence under SC/ST Act, says Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court
The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court has set aside the conviction of four persons under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, stating that just the fact that the first informant and the injured belonged to the schedule caste community does not constitute an offence under the SC/ST Act.
The court also ruled that an offence under the SC/ST Act should be investigated by a police officer not below the rank of deputy superintendent of police.
A double judge bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ajai Kumar Srivastava on August 5 observed: “Offence under the Act (SC/ST Act) is not established merely on the fact that the informant is a member of the scheduled caste, unless there is an intention to humiliate a member of the scheduled caste or schedule tribe for the reason that the victim belongs to such caste.”
“In the present case, the parties are litigating over possession of land. The allegations of hurling abuses is against a person, who claims title over the property. If such a person happens to be a scheduled caste, the offence under Section 3(1) (r) of the Act is not made out,” the court said.
The court set aside conviction of appellants Ram Sanjeevan Yadav, Ram Surat, Kundan Badhai and one Gaya under the SC/ST Act.
THE CASE
The fast-track court of additional sessions judge, Barabanki, had convicted appellants Ram Sajeevan Yadav, Kundan Badhai, Ram Surat and one Gaya under the SC/ST Act on March 29, 2008.
The appellants and one other person had allegedly attacked members of the scheduled caste community over a land dispute. An FIR was lodged at Tikait Nagar police station, Barabanki, on January 27, 1993.
One Auhardeen, who was injured in the incident, died while on way to police station.
A police official of the rank of sub-inspector had investigated the case.
The court observed that the incident was not planned and was spontaneous. The court also set aside the conviction of appellants under Section 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code and instead imposed Section 304 (II) of the IPC.
All the accused (appellants) were set free as they had already undergone prison term prescribed under Section 304(II) of the IPC.
