In a significant judgment, the Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled that an offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, can be sustained only if the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime knowing the victim belonged to an SC/ST community.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal delivered this verdict while partly allowing Criminal Appeal No. 210 of 2021, filed by Pramod @ Nanhu Tiwari, a resident of Kumhari village in the Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi district. The appellant challenged his conviction by the Special Judge under multiple offences including the POCSO Act, IPC, and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Background of the Case
The case arose from an incident on February 7, 2018, where a 6-year-old tribal girl was abducted from her house while swinging in the courtyard. According to her father, Badan Singh Paw, she was lured with biscuits by the accused, taken to a nearby forested hillock (Dongri), and sexually assaulted. The father found the accused in the act and immediately rescued the child.
An FIR was filed at Police Station Marwahi and after investigation, charges were framed under Sections 366 and 376(2) of IPC, Sections 6 of the POCSO Act, and Sections 3(1)(b-i)(b-ii) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The Special Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to life imprisonment under the POCSO Act and the Atrocities Act, along with 10 years for kidnapping under IPC.
High Court’s Key Observations
The High Court upheld the conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, modifying the sentence from life imprisonment to 14 years of rigorous imprisonment, considering that the offence occurred before the 2019 amendment which mandated a minimum of 20 years.
However, the conviction under Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act was set aside.
“Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act can only be invoked if the offence was committed knowing that the victim belonged to a Scheduled Caste or Tribe,” the Court noted.
Citing the Supreme Court rulings in Patan Jaman Vali v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Shashikant Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Bench stated:
“From the entire material available on record, it is evident that no legally admissible evidence has been led to prove that the appellant had the knowledge that the victim belonged to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community.”
Accordingly, the Court held that the ingredients of Section 3(2)(v) were not satisfied and quashed the life imprisonment imposed under this provision.
Child Witness Credibility Upheld
The High Court extensively quoted judgments of the Supreme Court that emphasise the weight of a prosecutrix’s sole testimony, especially in child sexual abuse cases.
Quoting from Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan and State of Punjab v. Gurmeet Singh, the Court observed:
“The testimony of a child victim, if found consistent and reliable, is sufficient to base conviction. In the absence of any contradiction, the victim’s statement is found to be completely simple, straightforward and true.”
Final Verdict
Conviction under Section 6 of POCSO Act: Upheld
Modified Sentence: 14 years rigorous imprisonment
Conviction under Section 366 IPC: Upheld
Sentence: 10 years RI
Conviction under Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(1)(b-i)(b-ii) of SC/ST Act: Set Aside
All sentences to run concurrently
Fine of ₹1000 under each applicable section remains unchanged
The Court directed the Superintendent of Jail to inform the appellant about his right to file an appeal in the Supreme Court, with assistance from Legal Services Committees.
Legal Representation
For the Appellant: Senior Advocate Y.C. Sharma, assisted by Sachin Nidhi and Vishal Chandravanshi
For the State: Panel Lawyer Malay Jain
