The Allahabad High Court has held that mere utterance of the word "saale" does not fall within the ambit of caste-related abuse under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

It was observed that the prosecution failed to prove the accused was aware of the victim's caste or intended to insult him on caste lines. Consequently, the Court set aside the appellant's conviction under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act and modified his life imprisonment sentence, while maintaining his conviction under Sections 307 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code.

The Division Bench of Justice Manoj Bajaj and Justice Harvir Singh held, "Now while analyzing the conviction of appellant under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, we find that the deposition of injured Sundar Lal does not conclusively prove the commission of the said offence. The statement of injured (P.W.-3) neither mentions that the accused was aware of his caste nor the alleged abuse “saale” uttered by accused would fall within the ambit of caste related abuse."

Senior Advocate Sunil Kumar Dwivedi appeared for the Appellant, while Government Advocate Durga Kumari appeared for the Respondent

Brief Facts of the Case

An appeal was filed by the Appellant herein, aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Special Judge in a case arising out of a criminal case under Sections 452 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The impugned judgment and order awarded the substantive sentence of life imprisonment along with a fine.

A complaint was filed alleging that the complainant and his brother went to meet their uncle, i.e. the Appellant, who had engaged the brother of the complainant for work in the sugarcane field. When the complainant's brother went for lunch without telling the Appellant, annoyed, the Appellant entered the house of the complainant and abused him in the name of caste and shot him, which resulted in injuries.

Contentions of the Parties

It was argued by the Appellant that, according to the prosecution case, the injured was first taken to a hospital, but there was no evidence on record that either he was treated there or was referred to Aligarh Medical College. He further argued that the prosecution evidence is discrepant in respect of the use of a firearm, as the nature of the bullet or pellets raises serious doubt about the alleged occurrence.

He further submitted that the medical evidence adduced by the prosecution did not support the ocular version, and it is the case of the prosecution that the accused had fired only one gunshot; therefore, two injuries on his person, i.e. on his right hand and right chest, would not be possible as a result of a single shot.

The State argued that though the FIR was lodged by complainant Munna, who is the brother of the injured and as per his version, the Appellant entered the house of the injured, who came for lunch, leaving the work at the field of the Appellant without informing him; therefore, he straightaway fired the gunshot at his brother.

It was also argued that merely because the weapon used in the crime was not recovered during investigation would not mean that the prosecution has not established the charges against the accused, and this omission by the Investigating Officer is not serious enough to disbelieve the prosecution case.

Observations/Findings of the Court

The Court observed that the alleged weapon was not recovered during the investigation and similarly the blood stains were also not sent to FSL, but this omission may not be significant as there is other evidence which was relied upon by the prosecution.

"The investigation is not conducted in a proper manner, that alone would not be a sufficient ground to discard the prosecution case, if, the other evidence on record conclusively proves the charge against the accused", the Court reiterated.

The Court rejected the argument of the Appellant that the lapses in the investigation would render the prosecution's case doubtful and said that the prosecution successfully discharged the onus in respect of commission of offences punishable under Section 452 and 307 I.P.C.

As regards the correctness of the conviction under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, the Court observed that the conviction of the appellant was not sustainable.

It was added, "The aim and object of sentence pursuant to conviction recorded by the trial court is meant to convey a strong message to the society which acts as a deterrent factor to discourage commission of crimes. Thus, it requires a balanced approach, and the trial court must ensure that the sentence imposed upon the convict is neither lenient nor excessive. "

Accordingly, the Court partly allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction of the Appellant under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/STAct, 1989, as well as the sentence of life imprisonment; and acquitted him of the said charge, but maintained the conviction for offences under Sections 307 and 452 of the IPC.

Cause Title: Sunil@Panjabi v. State of U.P. [Neutral Citation:2026:AHC:201947-DB]

Appearances:

Appellant: Senior Advocate Sunil Kumar Dwivedi, Advocates Akanksha Gaur, Dharmendra Kumar Chaubey, Pravin Kumar Tiwari, S.M. Faraz I. Kazmi, Santosh Kumar Shukla, Shiv Kumar Singh

Respondent: Durga Kumari, G.A., Advocates Jitendra Singh, Shishir Kumar Tiwari, Shyam Sudarshan

Click here to read/download the Judgment 

Tags: