Sanchayita Lahkar

The Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court comprising Justice Ilesh J. Vora and Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt, delivered a judgment on May 9, 2025, partially allowing a criminal appeal against conviction under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Bench set aside the life sentence awarded under Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act while upholding the conviction under the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

The appellant, convicted for multiple offenses including abduction and sexual assault of a minor, had appealed against the conviction and sentence pronounced by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch, in Special POCSO Case No. 30 of 2015. The judgment dated February 20, 2016, found the appellant guilty under Sections 363, 366, 376, and 377 of the IPC, Section 4 of the POCSO Act, and Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act.

Also Read: Invocation Would Render Section 9 Petition Infructuous | Supreme Court Upholds Interim Relief Under Article 227 And Directs Expedited Hearing

The incident occurred on January 19, 2013. The accused, a school van driver, was familiar with the minor victim, aged about 16 years, as his services were engaged to transport her to and from school. On the day of the incident, the accused diverted the van route under the pretext of having a private conversation and committed heinous offenses against the victim.

The prosecution presented both oral and documentary evidence to substantiate the charges. Key witnesses included the victim, her parents, medical officers, and investigating officers. Documentary evidence comprised medical examination reports, birth certificates, caste certificates, and forensic laboratory reports.

The defense primarily contested the conviction under Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act, arguing that the essential element of the offense—that the crime was committed on the ground of the victim’s caste—was not established. Citing the Supreme Court’s decisions in Khuman Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Asrafi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, it was argued that mere knowledge of the victim’s caste was insufficient; it must be shown that the offense was committed "on the ground that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe."

The Court examined the testimonies and evidence on record in detail. The Bench noted:

• "PW.3, the victim, has narrated the incident of sexual assault but did not state that the offense was committed because she belonged to a Scheduled Caste."

• "PW.4 and PW.5, the victim’s parents, have not deposed that the offense was committed due to caste-related reasons."

• "PW.14, the Investigating Officer, failed to investigate or establish the knowledge or intention of the accused regarding the victim’s caste at the time of the incident."

The Court further recorded that the accused had already served 12 years of imprisonment corresponding to the sentences under the IPC and POCSO Act, and no further incarceration was warranted under the Atrocities Act, especially in the absence of requisite evidence.

Examining the applicability of Section 3(2)(v), the Court cited the pre-amendment legal position, noting that prior to the 2016 amendment, it was necessary to prove that the offense was committed "on the ground that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe." This requirement was not satisfied in the present case.

The Bench referred to the Supreme Court’s observations in Asrafi vs. State of U.P., where it was held:

• "In the absence of evidence proving the intention of the accused in committing the offense only because the victim belongs to the SC/ST community, the conviction under Section 3(2)(v) cannot be sustained."

Similar reliance was placed on the case of Khuman Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reaffirming that "mere proof of an offense under IPC does not automatically attract the provisions of the SC/ST Act."

Also Read: Bombay High Court Quashes AY 2013-14 Reassessment | Notice Held Time-Barred As Surviving Period Expired On 23 July 2022

In view of the findings, the Court passed the following order:

• "The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.02.2016 convicting the accused-appellant under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act is hereby set aside."

• "The appeal is allowed in part. The accused, having undergone 12 years of imprisonment and completed the sentence qua IPC offenses and the offense under the POCSO Act, shall be released forthwith if his custody is not required in any other offense. The State has not challenged the sentence on the ground of its inadequacy."

• "If any fine has been deposited in respect of the conviction under the Atrocities Act, the same shall be refunded."

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Appellant: Mr. Bhavesh J. Patel, Mr. Radhesh Y. Vyas

For the Respondent-State: Ms. C.M. Shah, Additional Public Prosecutor

Case Title: XXX vs. State of Gujarat & Anr.

Case Number: R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST CONVICTION) NO. 658 of 2016

Bench: Justice Ilesh J. Vora, Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt

[Read/Download order]