LatestLaws.com
All you should know about ‘Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Atrocities) Act, 199 By !"#ishnu Prasad $eddy (Retd. $eddy (Retd. District and Sessions Judge) %b&ect and the preamble of the statute will give us better understanding of the provisions of the SC S! ("#$) $ct (hereinafter ref erred as %$ct&) 'Despite various measures to improve the socioeconomic socioeconomic conditions of SCs & STs, they remain vulnerable. They are denied a number of civil rights; they are subjected to various offences, indignities, humiliations and harassment. They have, in several brutal incidents, been deprived of their life and property. Serious atrocities are committed against them for various historical, social and economic reasons.” Prea'ble of the $ct also states that the $ct aims 'To prevent the commission of offences of atrocities against the members of Scheduled Castes and Tribes, to provide for Special Courts for the trial of such offences and for the relief and rehabilitation of the victims of such offenses and for matters connected thereith or incidental thereto.” Article 1 of Constitution of ndia states ndia states to abolish untouchability and to forbid all such practices. *n +,-, the /overnment of *ndia enacted the Scheduled Castes and ! ribes ("revention of $trocities) $ct in order to prevent atrocities against SC0 S!&s. !he purpose of the $ct is to prevent atrocities and help in social inclusion of Dalits into the society Comprehensive Rules under the $ct under sec 12 of the $ct were notified in the year +,,3 which interalia provides norms for relief and rehabilitation and amended from time to time.. %ffenders, #icti's and %ffences %ffences $ny person who is not a member of a scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe and commits an offences listed in the $ct against a member of a scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe is an offender . !he %victi' %victi'&& should be a member of a scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe against whom any of the following offences are committed by the offender4 Ty*es of atrocities a+ainst SCsSTs (Section 2(+)i to 5v and 2(1)i to vii.(modified as sec 2(+) a to 6c and 2(1) * to vii by act no + of 17+8)
1|Page
LatestLaws.com
+. 9orced to eat or drin: an offensive or uneatable substance; 1. Caused annoyance in
rongfully deprived of cultivation of his land; 3. >rongfully deprived of his rights over any land premises or water; 8. 9orced to do beggary or wor: as a bonded labourer; ?. "revented from e5ercising his right to vote or according to his wishes; -. Subrongfully caused in
2|Page
LatestLaws.com
for custody of the property by a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled !ribe shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine; (v) commits any offence under the *ndian "enal 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 !ribe or such property belongs to such member shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine; (vi) :nowingly or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed under this Chapter causes any evidence of the t he commission of that offence to t o disappear with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment or with t hat intention gives any information respecting the off ence which he :nows or believes to to be false shall be punishable with the punishment provided for that offence; or (vii) Being a public servant commits any offence under this section shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may e5tend to the punishment provided for that offence. ew %ffences added0 !he following new offences have been added to the list of atrocities vide $ct o+ of 17+8 effective from 187+17+8 •
• • •
• • • • • • • •
!onsuring of head moustache or similar acts which are derogatory to the dignity of members of SCs S!s /arlanding with Chappals Denying access to irrigation facilities or forest rights Dispose or carry human or animal carcasses or to dig graves using or permitting manual scavenging scavenging Dedicating a SC0S! woman as Devadasi $busing in caste name perpetrating witchcraft atrocities *mposing social or economic boycott "reventing SC0S! candidates from filing of nomination to contest elections urting a SC0S! woman by removing her garments 9orcing a member of SC0S! to leave house village or residence Defiling ob
Protections *rovided us Section .0 "rotections under the act can be broadly divided into protection from •
•
• •
Social disabilities (denial of access to certain places and to use customary passage and to get water from any spring reservoir or any other source). "ersonal atrocities (forceful drin:ing or eating of inedible or obno5ious substance against stripping outrage of modesty se5ual e5ploitation in
LatestLaws.com
• •
"olitical disabilities. Economic e5ploitation.
!noing about virtual status about "member of schedule caste and schedule tribe# is very much essential for implementation of the $ct %ide $rticles '( and ') of T*+ C-STT/T- 0 -D$, the 1resident of ndia and 2overnors of the States had a mandate to compile a full listing of castes and tribes of ea3er sections for e4tending the benefits specified under the Constitution of ndia. Therefore, the complete lists of Schedule castes and tribes ere made via to orders5 The Constitution 6Scheduled Castes7 rder, (89: and The Constitution 6Scheduled Tribes7 rder, (89:, respectively. 6ists are amended from time to time7 uently been clarified by the $pe4 Court that the above principle is not an infle4ible one and that on evidence it can be established that the caste of the mother is the caste of the child provided the child has been accepted by that community and is brought up and living according to the tenets of that community. Therefore, the children ould naturally gain the caste of a father. but because the mother is not losing her caste then if the t he children ants to enjoy the benefits of reservation then in such a case a special procedure have to be folloed and they must prove that they ere brought up according to to tenets of their mother#s caste. 4|Page
LatestLaws.com
%!he Statute laid stress on the intention of the accused in committing such offence under S! SC ("#$) $C! +,-,. !herefore * am of the view that mere :nowledge that the victim belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled !ribe community is not sufficient to constitute an offence under Section 2 (1)(v) of the $ct. #n the other hand such :nowledge should necessarily be coupled with intention to commit such an offence in order to belittle the person as he0she belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled !ribe community. *n the case reported as %2ekala %2ekala $a&ireddy and %rs" vs State %f Andhra Pradesh $e*" By $e*" By ... on ++ December 177+EAuivalent citations4 1771 (+) $GD Cri =?? 1771 CriGJ 2=7?& it is observed "$dmittedly, $?) and $?@ belong to S.C. community. $part from that, the remand report reveals that $? and $?' also belongs to S.C. community. n such circumstances, it is difficult to believe that all the accused had committed the offence ith the 3noledge that 1.A.( belongs to S.C. community, more particularly ith an intention to commit such offence against her, since she belongs to S.C. community. n other ords, the real intention of the accused as to commit the offence under Section @= .1.C. only and in vie of the above facts and circumstances of the case, it is difficult to dra an inference that the accused had intention to commit the offence under Section @= .1.C. against 1.A., only because she belongs to S.C. community. Therefore, the vie is that the accused cannot be found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 6)76v7 of the $ct and and they are entitled for an ac>uittal. " !he minimum sentence in most cases is si5 months imprisonment while the ma5imum is five years sentence and with fine. *n some cases the minimum is enhanced to one year while the ma5imum goes up to life imprisonment or even death sentence. %State of 3arnataka vs A**a 4alu n+ale And %thers %thers $*R +,,2 SC ++18 +,,2 st (+) $G! Cri 2,7 +,,2 CriGJ +71,& is the + case before the ape5 court up holding the ob
5|Page
LatestLaws.com
$ Reference from Spl court ahbubnagar district with the following Auestions came up for before the #&BGE igh Court of $. " (+) >hether the Special Court constituted under Section += of the Central $ct III*** of +,-, is empowered and competent to ta:e cogni6ance of and to try any offence other than an offence under the said $ct with which the accused may under the Cr"C be charged at the same trial. (1) >hether the onble igh Court itself had the power and is competent to vest and if so the Circular order in Roc. o. 13-10S#0,+ dated +11+,,1 of onble igh Court issued in e5ercise of its powers under Section =7? of the Criminal "rocedure Code vests such nonterritorial hat is the procedure to be followed while ta:ing cogni6ance of the offences by the Special Court constituted under Section += of the $ct4 (a) >hether it can ta:e cogni6ance of the offences directly as a Court of original criminal hether it can ta:e cogni6ance of the offences only on committal by a competent agistrate Court following the procedure as laid down under Cr.".C. (1) >hether the direction in the otification o. 1 in /.#.s. o. +7 Social >elfare () Department dated4 ?1+,,8 to the "residing #fficers of Special Courts K to receive try and dispose of the cases filed under the $ctK will vest the Special Court with the power to ta:e cogni6ance of the offences under the $ct directly without being committed under Section +,2 Cr.".CL Cr.". CL (2) >hether the provisions of Clause (v) of Subsection (1) of Section 2 of the $ct are attracted in the case of an offence under Section 271 *.".C. which is punishable with death or imprisonment for lifeL (=) >hether the provisions of Clause (v) of Subsection (1) of Section 2 of the $ct are attracted where an offence is committed against a person or property without :nowing that such person is a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled !ribe 6|Page
LatestLaws.com
or such a property belongs to such a member but comes to light subseAuent to the commission of the offence that such person is a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled !ribeL (3) >hether the Special Court has got here the offence is committed against a person or property without :nowing that such person is a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled !ribe but it comes to light only subseAuent to the Commission of offence that such person is a member of SC0S!. ere again the answer is in the negative. !he words on the ground employed in clause (v) are important. *t is the motive and intention at the time of commission of offence that matters. *f the offence off ence punishable with a term of +7 years of imprisonment or more is committed not because the victim is a member of SC0S! but for other reasons or without having :nowledge about the caste there is no scope to apply Section 2(1)(v). 9or instance a case of robbery for gain punishable under Section 2,1 does not attract Section 2(1)(v) merely because the victim is a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled !ribe person. !he last Auestion is whether the Special Court has
7|Page
LatestLaws.com
'Spl court has no authority to directly ta:e cogni6ance without committal ' is again observed in Anu'ula $a&i $eddy vs State %f A"P. A"P. Rep. By "ublic ... on 27 July 177= vide citations4 1773 CriGJ 117 Recently the Supreme Court of *ndia in $attira' : %rs vs State %f 2"P"Tr"ns*"%f Police, on Police, on +? 9ebruary 17+1 held that Bthe objection relating to non?compliance of Section (8 of the Code, hich eventually has resulted in directly entertaining and ta3ing cogniance by the Special udge under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes 61revention of $trocities7 $ct, (8E8, does not vitiate the trial and on the said ground ground alone, the conviction cannot be set aside or there cannot be a direction of retrial and, therefore, the decision rendered in
LatestLaws.com
By following such observation in Stalin =ather > anda Stalin > """ vs The State %f A"P" for noncompliance of Rule ? inasmuch as the investigation was conducted by the #fficers who are not competent to conduct the investigation in the light of Rule ? the investigation also is defective and on that ground also the appellant0$+ is entitled for acAuittal in relation to the charges with which he was charged with. owever in ?anna' Satyanarayan vs State %f A"P. A"P. 1778 CriGJ 1217 it is observed that Bt is open to the accused or the party aggrieved at the initial stages to raise such objection on the investigation conducted by any fficer other than the one contemplated under Gule @ of the Gules and invite a decision before the commencement of the trial itself. *oever, the same cannot be ta3en advantage after completion of the entire trial, more so, in the absence of shoing any substantial prejudice. t is only here the Court on either stage comes to conclusion that the rights and interests, of the accused or the party aggrieved have been substantially affected or prejudiced, necessary benefit has to be e4tended. Ae accordingly hold that the said Gule is not mandatory but only a directory one. Conse>uently e overrule the decision in "is#anadhula Chittibabu v. State of $.P ” !enial of antici*atory bail (Section 1)0 *n 3" 2allesha' vs State %f A"P. A"P. on +7 $ugust +,,- reported at4 +,,- (3) $GD +17 +,,- (1) $GD Cri 381 +,,- (1) $G! Cri 2,3 +,,, CriGJ 21 it is observed "The CourtHs jurisdiction to issue appropriate directions in e4ercise of its jurisdiction under Section 'E of the Code ould in no ay be e4cluded by mere mentioning the provisions of the 1revention of $trocities $ct in the 0G or in the complaint, complaint, as the case may be. The CourtHs jurisdiction in no ay could be effected by hat the Station *ouse fficer docs at the time of registration of the crime. The crucial >uestion ould be as to hether the contents of the complaint or the 0G ould attract the provisions of the 1revention of $trocities $ct. Fere mention or non?mention of the provisions of the 1revention of $trocities $ct is of no conse>uence. n a given case, the contents of the allegations may attract the provisions of the 1revention of $trocities $ct, though there there is no such mention of the provisions at the time of registration of the crime. i3e?ise, the allegations allegations in the 0G or the complaint may not attract the provisions of the 1revention of $trocities $ct, at all, though a mention is made in the 0G of those provisions. provisions. Ahat is re>uired is a pragmatic assessment of the contents of the complaint in every given case. +ven if there is a single averment attracting the provisions of the 1revention of $trocities $ct, it ould be enough to e4clude the operation of Section 'E of the Code. Ahat is important is to have an assessment of the cumulative effect of the allegations made in the Complaint or the 0G, as the case may be.#
9|Page
LatestLaws.com
*n Public Prosecutor, uarrel beteen to persons on the ground that one of them had teased or laughed at the concubine concubine of the other. That as the real motive for accused -o. ( to commit the offence as against the deceased and nothing more than that. Therefore, no offence punishable under Section 6)76v7 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes 61revention of $trocities7 $ct, (8E8 is brought out beyond any degree of doubt much less reasonable doubt# So the genesis of the incident should be proved as an intentional atrocity on caste basis but not on any other issue. *n !inesh > 4uddha vs State %f $a&asthan ape5 $a&asthan ape5 court observed that Sine >ua non for application of Section 6)76v7 is that an off ence must have been committed against a person on the ground that such person is a member of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. n the instant case no evidence has been led to establish this re>uirement. t is not case of the prosecution that the rape as committed on the victim since she as a member of Scheduled Caste. n the absence of evidence to that effect, Section 6)76v7 has no application. " State %f A"P" $e*" 4y The Advocate vs S" Tulasidas Tulasidas $dvocate S. Sharat ... reported as 1771 (1) $G! =8+ it is a case where an advocate gave complaint against the presiding officer of the court for alleged offence under S! SC $ct. *n 4harat Petroleu' Cor*oration """ vs @nion of ndia and %thers on %thers on 1- June 1777(EAuivalent citations4 1777 (3) $GD 388 1777 (3) $G! 871) it is observed B*aving given serious consideration to the issue, am of the vie that the contention of the learned 2overnment 1leader cannot be countenanced for the simple reason the very section itself is specific that the insult or intimidation should have ta3en place in public vie. t need not be a public place, place, it could also be a private place. The intention of the 1arliament as very clear that this insult or intimidation should have been caused in a place ithin the public vie. f it is committed in any place hich is not ithin the public vie, it ould not be treated as an offence. therise, the 1arliament could have omitted the ords ithin the public vie, and it ould be redundant if the contention of the learned 2overnment 1leader is accepted. $dmittedly, in the instant case, the alleged offence has ta3en place in the chambers chambers of the fficers here there as no public, and hich as not ithin the public vie. t is not even the contention of the 'th respondent that the events ere vieed by the public on the days mentioned by him in the complaint. n such a situat ion, it 10 | P a g e
LatestLaws.com
ould be very difficult for this Court to conclude that even though public did not vie the event, yet, it has to be treated as a offence under Section 6(7647 of the $ct.” " * AT%A CA2PA% !AT <@2A $R*! %$S.(>R*! "E!*!*# (C*F*G) o. +=7 of 1778) as observed on +3 December 17+8 by the ape5 court Bench4 Justice !.S. !ha:ur D.M. Chandrachud G. ageswara Rao the authorities referred in the act has to consider the proper implementation of the act which "rovides compensation relief and rehabilitation for victims of atrocities or their legal heirs (Section +?(2) 1+(1)iii Rule ++ +1(=)). *dentification of atrocity prone areas (Section +?(+) 1+(1) vii Rule 2(+)). Setting up deterrents to avoid committing of atrocities on the SCs amongst others (Rule 2i to 25i). Settin+ u* a 'andatory, *eriodic 'onitorin+ syste' at different levels (Section levels (Section 1+(1)v)4 • • •
District level (Rule 25i =(1) =(=) +?). State level (-5i += +8 +-). ational level (Section 1+(1) 1+(2) 1+(=)).
%n abuse of the *rovisions of the Act0 *n 3"Aravinda $ao vs 1") A"Sunder 3u'ar !as and %thers %thers on +, January 17+3 JHS!*CES .S.R$$C$DR$ R$# and S.F. B$!! made observations on how to follow Rule 3 under the act to register 9.*.R if case is made out or to close the complaint if no case is made out. Rule ? has to be followed if the case is registered. #> the grievance of the complaint has been given the colour of atrocity under the act is also discussed. *. "#" $a'ana $a&u A! A %T<;$ vs The State of Public P$%S;C@T%$ P$%S;C@T%$ DEC*DED. on + $ugust 17+= BM #BGE */ C#H! $! MDER$B$D $s per the allegations made in the complaint the petitioners herein denied promotion to Dr.M.Niran Numar in time thereby insulted and humiliated him as he belongs to Scheduled Caste community. But by referring to (177?) +1 SCC + the complaint was Auashed u0s =-1 Cr"C. !he on&ble Supreme Court of *ndia in %ori+e %ori+e Pentaiah vs State %f A"P" : %rsB on %rsB on 17 $ugust 177- by the Bench of Dalveer Bhandari and J.. "anchal Auashed the frivolous complaint in Cr no 1-+ of 177= of Hppal ".S yderabad which is with facts of civil case for the allegation %K$$ G$B$D#DH %let him come home today we will settle the matter with him. Smt. $smatunnisa also abused my wifeO. !he Supreme Court Auashed the crime no4 37 of 1778 of
11 | P a g e
LatestLaws.com
*n respect of rival claims of right over immovable property the complaint for offence u0s 2(+) viii for filing f iling suit is Auashed in $avinder Sin+h vs Sukhbir Sin+h : %rs on %rs on ++ January 17+2 by ape5 court Bench4of B.S. Chauhan F. /opala /owda 4" Sudhakar $eddy vs The S"<"%", $A, Cyberabad, Sha'shabad, $an+a $eddy !istrict and 5 others, >" o.+23?? #9 17+1 17+1 by order dt 187=17+2 187=17+2 case observed that 'that the complaint is unclear in various aspects regarding the offence committed under Section 6(7647 of the $ct; and the document produced by the accused before this Court ould establish the falsity of the allegations are matters hich cannot be e4amined at this stage, i.e., hen investigation has just commenced. B 'n vie of this statutory stipulation, it is not permissible for the Sub?nspector of 1olice to investigate a complaint under the $ct. The 'th respondent shall, forthith, entrust investigation of 0G -o.('9 of ):() to a police officer not belo the ran3 of Deputy Superintendent of 1olice.” The Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes ((Prevention of Atrocities) A'end'ent ACT, /16 P /16 P *t came in to force on 187+17+8 with following $mendments +. $mendments to chapter ii (#99ECES #9 $!R#C*!*ES) to include new definitions new offences to rephrase e5isting sections and the scope of presumptions. 1. *nstitutional strengthening 2. $ppeals =. Establishing rights of victims and witnesses (new chapter vi $) 3. Strengthening preventive measures m easures Present relief a'ounts details Rs -3777 to the victim in case of offences li:e "revention from voting f iling nomination 9orcing intimidating or obstructing a holder of office of "anchayat or unicipality from performing duties etc. •
• • •
Rs 377777 to the victim in case of rape and Rs -13777 in case of gang rape Rs -13777 in case of murder Rs +77777 in case of imposition or threatening a social or economic boycott Rs +77777 in case of preventing a SC0S! entering any place of worship which is open to the public etc.
12 | P a g e
LatestLaws.com
A'end'ent of wilful ne+li+ence of *ublic servant0 !he term %wilful negligence& of public servants at all levels starting f rom the registration of complaint and covering aspects of dereliction of duty under this $ct has been clearly defined. Presu'*tion to the offences has been added to the act act *f the accused was acAuainted with the victim or his family the court will presume that the accused was aware of the caste or tribal identity of the victim unless proved otherwise.
13 | P a g e
