14 Chapter 5

CHAPTER - V
APPRAISAL OF SCHEDULED CASTES AND

SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF
ATROCITIES) ACT 1989
It is the constitutional duty of the state to protect the interest of

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes from atrocities. The word
atrocity is being used in India in connection with Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes who are subjected to violence and brutalities
especially in rural areas by the upper caste Hindus. The ineffective
Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 also brought to the fore limitations
both of the law as well as its implementation in eliminating the
practice of untouchability in view of its entrenched position in the
psyche and behavior of the caste Hindus and their resistance to
change. Meanwhile various atrocities against Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes continue to be committed in different parts of the
country. It was realized that even the amended Protection of Civil
Rights Act, 1955 and the normal provisions of IPC did not provide
deterrence in preventing violence on Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes especially offences committed on the grounds of caste.
Accordingly, Parliament passed another law called, Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The
Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was
enacted by the Parliament of India, in order to prevent atrocities
against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The purpose of the
Act was to help the social inclusion of Scheduled castes and
scheduled tribes into Indian society, but the Act has failed to live up
to its expectations.1
1 http://wikipedia,org/wiki.Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act-1989. visited 28th May 2011.
200
5.1 THE OBJECTIVE OF THE ACT
In the Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the Bill
when it was moved in the Parliament, it was observed that despite
various measures to improve the socio-economic conditions of
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, they still remain vulnerable.
They are denied a number of civil rights and are subjected to various
offences, indignities, humiliations and harassments. They have been
in several brutal instances, deprived of their life and property. Serious
atrocities are committed against them for various historical, social and
economic reasons. The Act, for the first time, lays down the contours
of atrocity so as to cover all the different ways through which
members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes have been for
centuries humiliated, brutally oppressed, degraded, denied their
economic and social rights and relegated to perform the most menial
jobs.
The objectives of the Act very clearly emphasize the intention of
the Government to deliver justice to these communities through
affirmative action to enable them to live in society with dignity and
self-esteem and without fear, violence, and suppression from the
dominant castes. The Act provides for strong punishment and
compensation to victims and also lays down preventive measures. In
other words the objectives of this act are as under:-
1. The act was necessitated due to the fact that Scheduled Caste
and Scheduled Tribes still remained vulnerable despite various
measures taken to improve their socio-economic condition.
2. The Act is expected to provide the necessary legal protection to
them against the atrocities.
3. The object of the act is to prevent atrocities upon the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes by non-Scheduled Castes and
non-Scheduled Tribes. To achieve this object the Act has been
enacted making the atrocities committed by the non-Scheduled
Castes and non-Scheduled Tribes punishable as an offence.
201
If the act is implemented strictly the dream of social justice
and human rights can be fulfilled in real terms.
5.2 SHORT TITLE, EXTENT AND COMMENCEMENT

Section 1 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989 deals with the title, extent and
commencement of the Act. The area where it will have its operation is
the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir which
occupies a special constitutional position.2 Section 1 runs as under:-
(1) This Act may be called the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
(2) It extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and
Kashmir.
(3) It shall come into force on such date as the Central Government
may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint.
Definitions
(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-
(a) "atrocity" means an offence punishable under section 3;3
The term Atrocity has not been defined in law. However,
atrocity has been made punishable under the Section 3 of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act 1989. The word Atrocity is being used in India in
connection with Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes who
are subjected to violence and brutalities by any person who is
not a member of a Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes.4
(b) "Code" means the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of
1974);5
(c) "Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes" shall have the
2 Article 370, The Constitution of India.

3 Section 2(a), The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act 1989.
4 R.K. Bolothia v. Union of India, 1994 CriLJ 2668(MP).
5 Section 2(b), The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act 1989.
202
meanings assigned to them respectively under clause (24)
and clause (25) of article 366 of the Constitution;6
Article 366 (24) of the Constitution provides Scheduled Castes as:
Scheduled Castes means such castes, races or tribes or parts
of or groups within such castes, races, or tribes as are deemed under
Article 341 to be Scheduled Castes for the purposes of the
Constitution. Article 341 of the Constitution reads as follows:
(1) The President, may with respect to any State 7[or Union
territory], and where it is a State, after consultation with the
Government, thereof, by public notification, specify the caste,
races or tribes or parts of or groups within castes, races or
tribes which shall for the purposes of this Constitution be
deemed to be Scheduled Castes in relation to that State or
Union territory, as the case may be.
(2) Parliament may by law include in or exclude from the list of
Scheduled Castes specified in a notification issued under
Clause (1) any castes, race or tribe or part of or group within
any caste, race or tribe, but save as aforesaid a notification
issued under the said clause shall not be varied by any
subsequent notification.
Similarly Article 366 (25) provides Scheduled Tribes as:
Scheduled Tribes means such tribes or tribal communities or
parts of or groups within such tribes or communities as are deemed
under Article 342 to be Scheduled Tribes for the purposes of this
Constitution.
Article 342 of Constitution describes Scheduled Tribes as under:
(1) The President may with respect to any State or Union Territory,
and where it is a State, after consultation with the Governor
therefore, by public notification, specify the tribes or tribal
communities or parts of or groups within tribes or tribal
6 Section 2(c), Ibid.

7 Inserted by the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956.
203
communities which shall for the purposes of this constitution be
deemed to be Scheduled Tribes in relation to that State or Union
Territory, as the case may be.
(2) Parliament may by law include in or exclude from the list of
Scheduled Tribes specified in a notification issued under clause
(1) any tribe or tribal community or part of or groups within any
tribe or tribal community, but save as aforesaid a notification
issued under the said clause shall not be varied by any
subsequent notification.
(d) "Special Court" means a Court of Session specified as a
Special Court in section 14.8
A Sessions Court specified as Special Court could take
cognizance of the offence under the Act, but it could not entertain the
complaint without being committed to it by a competent Magistrate.9
In Mangal Prasad v. Additional Session Judge-IInd,10 the court
held that the Court below has been appointed as a special Judge
within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Act but unless the accused is
sent to him by the Magistrate, he cannot take any cognizance of the
offence under Section 14 of the said Act and he also cannot act as a
Magistrate in exercising his power or in taking the cognizance of the
Act like a Magistrate or to send that complaint petition to the
concerned police station under Section 156 (3), Criminal Procedure
Code.11
(3) "Special public Prosecutor" means a Public Prosecutor specified
as Special Prosecutor or an advocate referred to in section 15;12
(4) words and expressions used but not defined in this Act and
defined in the Code or the Indian Penal Code 1860 shall have
the meanings assigned to them respectively in the Code, or as
8 Section 2(d), The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act 1989.
9 M.A. Kuttappan v. E. Krishnan Nayar, 2004 (1) ALD (Cri.) 656 (SC).
10 1996 CriLJ3596(All).
11 Mangal Prasad v. Additional Session Judge-IInd, 1996 CriLJ 3596 (All).
12 Section (2)(e), The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act 1989.
204
the case may be, in the Indian Penal Code.13
Any reference in this Act to any enactment or any provision
thereof shall, in relation to an area in which such enactment or such
provision is not in force, be construed as a reference to the
corresponding law, if any, in force in that.14
5.3 PUNISHMENTS FOR OFFENCES OF ATROCITIES

Section 4 of the Act deal with punishments for offences of
atrocities. If an offence is committed by an upper caste member upon
a lower caste member, such person shall be liable for punishment
under section 4 of the act. This section contains substantive penal
clauses. Section 3(1)(i)to(xv) and section 3(2)(i)to(viii) describes various
offences of atrocities and also provide different punishment. Section 4
reads as under:
(1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled
Tribe-
(i). forces a member a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe to
drink or eat any inedible or obnoxious substance;15
(ii). acts with intent to cause injury, insult or annoyance to any
member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by
dumping excreta, waste matter, carcasses or any other
obnoxious substance in his promises or neighbourhood;16
(iii). forcibly removes clothes from the person of a member of a
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or parades him
naked or with painted face or body or commits any similar
act which is derogatory to human dignity;17
(iv). wrongfully occupies or cultivates any land owned by, or
allotted to, or notified by any competent authority to be
allotted to, a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled
13 Section 2(f), Ibid.

14 Section 2(2), Ibid.
15 Section 3(1)(i), Ibid.
16 Section 3(1)(ii), Ibid.
17 Section 3(1)(iii), Ibid.
205
Tribe or gets the land allotted to on transferred;18
(v). Wrongfully dispossesses a member of a Scheduled Caste or
a Scheduled Tribe from his land or premises or interferes
with the enjoyment of his rights over any land, premises or
water;19
(vi). compels or entices a member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe to do 'begar' or other similar forms of
forced or bonded labour other than any compulsory service
for public purposes imposed by Government;20
(vii). forces or intimidates a member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe not to vote or to vote to a particular
candidate or to vote in a manner other than that provided
by law;21
(viii). institutes false, malicious or vexatious suit or criminal or
other legal proceedings against a member of a Scheduled
Caste or a Scheduled Tribe;22
(ix). gives, any false or frivolous information to any public
servant and thereby causes such public servant to use his
lawful power to the injury or annoyance of a member of a
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe;23
(x). intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate
a member of Scheduled Castes or a Scheduled Tribes in
any place within public view;24
(xi). assaults or uses force to any woman belonging to a
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe with intent to
dishonour or outrage her modesty;25
(xii). being in a position to dominate the will of a woman
18 Section 3(1)(iv), Ibid.

19 Section 3(1) (v), Ibid.
20 Section 3(1)(vi), Ibid.
21 Section 3(1)(vii), Ibid.
22 Section 3(1)(viii), Ibid.
23 Section 3(1)(ix), Ibid.
24 Section 3(1)(x), Ibid.
25 Section 3(1)(xi), Ibid.
206
belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and
uses that position to exploit her sexually to which she
would not have otherwise agreed;26
(xiii). corrupts or fouls the water of any spring, reservoir or any
other source ordinarily used by members of the Scheduled
Castes or the Scheduled Tribes so as to render it less fit for
the purpose for which it is ordinarily used;27
(xiv). denies a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled
Tribe any customary right of passage to a place of public
resort or obstructs such member so as to prevent him from
using or having access to a place of public resort to which
other members of public or any section thereof have a right
to use or access to;28
(xv). forces or causes a member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe to leave his house, village or other place of
residence, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a
term which shall not be less than six months but which
may extend to five years and with fine.29
(2) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe,-
(i). gives or fabricates false evidence intending thereby to
cause, or knowing it be likely that he will thereby cause any
member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe to be
convicted of an offence which is capital by the law for the
time being in force shall be punished with imprisonment for
life and with fine; and if an innocent member of a
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe be convicted and
executed in consequence of such false or fabricated
evidence, the person who gives or fabricates such false
26 Section 3(1)(xii), Ibid.

27 Section 3(1)(xiii), Ibid.
28 Section 3(1)(xiv), Ibid.
29 Section 3(1)(xv), Ibid.
207
evidence, shall be punished with death;30
(ii). gives or fabricates false evidence intending thereby to
cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause,
any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe to
be convicted of an offence which is not capital but
punishable with imprisonment for a term of seven years or
upwards, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term
which shall not be less than six months but which may
extend to seven years or upwards and with fine;31
(iii). commits mischief by fire or any explosive substance
intending to cause or knowing it to be likely that he will
thereby cause damage to any property belonging to a
member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, shall
be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall
not be less than six months but which may extend to seven
years and with fine;32
(iv). commits mischief by fire or any explosive substance
intending to cause or knowing it to be likely that he will
thereby cause destruction of any building which is
ordinarily used as a place of worship or as a place for
human dwelling or as a place for custody of the property by
a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, shall
be punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine;33
(v). commits any offence under the Indian Penal Code 1860
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
Tribe or such property belongs to such member, shall be
30 Section 3(2)(i), Ibid.

31 Section 3(2)(ii), Ibid.
32 Section 3(2)(iii), Ibid.
33 Section 3(2)(iv), Ibid.
208
punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine;34
(vi). knowingly or having reason to believe that an offence has
been committed under this Act, causes any evidence of the
commission of that offence to disappear with the intention
of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with
that intention gives any information respecting the offence
which he knows or believes to be false, shall be punishable
with the punishment provided for that offence; or35
(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
extend to the punishment provided for that offence.36
5.3.1 Use of Force Against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

Tribes
Sections 3(1)(i) to 3(1)(iii) specifies the offences of atrocities by
use of force. If a member of non-Scheduled Castes or Scheduled
Tribes use force against the member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe like forcing him to drinking him or eat any inedible
or obnoxious substance or does any acts with intent to cause injury,
insult or annoyance to any member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe by dumping excreta, waste matter, carcasses or any
other obnoxious substance in his premises or neighbourhood or
forcibly removes clothes from the person of a member of a Scheduled
Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or parades him naked or with painted face
or body or commits any similar act which is derogatory to human
dignity, shall be liable for minimum mandatory punishment of six
months which may be extend to five years and with fine.
It must be made specifically clear that in order to constitute an
offence of atrocity under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and
34 Section 3(2)(v), Ibid.

35 Section 3(2)(vi), Ibid.
36 Section 3(2)(vii), Ibid.
209
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 the offence must
be committed by:
(i). a non-member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe;
(ii). in respect of a member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribes; and
(iii). the offence must be committed in public view.
It was observed by court in Kanubhai M.Parmar v. State of
Gujarat,37 that if the offence is committed by persons belonging to
Scheduled Caste against Scheduled Caste member, they cannot be
prosecuted and punished under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
In Kaliya Perumal v. State of Madras,38a question arose before
the high court that if a Scheduled caste woman married to high caste
mens, entitled to file the case under the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. In this case
Haridoss who belongs to Yadhava community by merely marrying a
Harijan lady cannot claim to have become a Harijan and as such, he
is not entitled to the reservation as provided in Articles 15 (4) and 16
(4) of the Constitution. So, the marriage does not create a conversion
of the caste. In the same way, merely because a Harijan lady, who has
suffered all along from her birth the handicaps, disadvantages and
restrictions to which the members of the Scheduled Caste community
were subjected to, married a member of the backward class
community, she cannot be said to have acquired the backward class
community.
To construe law one must enter into its spirit, its selling and
history, Law should be capable to expand freedom of the people and
the legal order can weigh with utmost equal care to provide the
underpinning of the highly inequitable social order. Judicial review
must be exercised with insight into social values to supplement the
37 2001(3) RCR (Cri.), Gara Yesobu v. State of A.P. 2005(1) RCR1000(A.P).

38 1998 CriLJ 1468.
210
changing social needs. The existing social inequalities or imbalances
are required to be removed re-adjusting the social order through rule
of law. In that case, the need for protection of right to take water,
under the Civil Rights Protection Act, and the necessity to uphold the
constitutional mandate of abolishing untouchability and its practice in
any form was emphasised.
In the light of the above discussion it was held that the
complainant Thenmozhi, who acquired the status of a Scheduled
Caste woman by her birth right cannot lose her right of prosecution
under the relevant sections of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the petitioner merely
because, she married a relative of the petitioner, who belongs to a
backward class community.39
In the case of State of Karnataka v. Ingale40 The State of
Karnataka had charged five individuals for violating the provision of
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
1989. At trial, four witnesses testified that the defendants had
threatened Scheduled Caste member with a gun in order to stop them
from taking water from a well. The defendants told the Scheduled
Caste member that they had no right to take water, because they were
untouchables. The trial judge convicted all of the defendants. On
appeal, the Additional Sessions judge confirmed the conviction of
three defendants but acquitted two of them. On further appeal to the
High Court, the judge acquitted all the defendants after rejecting the
testimony of the four Scheduled Caste witnesses. The Scheduled Caste
finally got relief from the Supreme Court.
5.3.2 Wrongful Dispossession

The Act provides that if any non-Scheduled Caste and non-
Scheduled tribes wrongfully occupies or cultivates any land owned by,
or allotted to, or notified by any competent authority to be allotted to a
39 Kaliya Perumal v. State, 1998 CriLJ 1467 (Mad).

40 (1992)3SCR 284.
211
member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or gets the land
allotted to him transferred, shall be liable for minimum mandatory
punishment of six months which may extend to five years and shall
liable for fine.41
In Kashiben Chhaganbhai Koli v. State of Gujarat,42 a member of
Scheduled Caste was dispossessing from his land by upper caste
member. The accused agreed to sell his land to complainant and
handed over possession to him. The accused thereafter forcibly
entered upon land and damaged crops. Eye-witness supported the
claim cases of the complainant and the accused was convicted under
section 3(1)(v) as well as for cheating and damaging crops.
5.3.3 Begar or Bonded Labour

If non-scheduled castes and scheduled tribes compels or entices
a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe to do 'begar' or
other similar forms of forced or bonded labour other than any
compulsory service for public purposes imposed by Government43shall
be liable for minimum mandatory punishment of six years which may
extend to five years and shall liable for fine. Begar means
involuntary work without payment.44 The word begar constitutes of
the elements:-
(a) it is to compel a person to work against his will.
(b) he is not paid any remuneration for work.
Other similar forms of forced and bounded labour, it means to
compel a person to work against his will.
Beside this Act, the constitution of India45 also provides a
similar provision. The Constitution of India provides that traffic in
41Section 3(1)(v), The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

42 2009 CriLJ 1156.
43Section 3(1)(vi), the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989.

44Peoples Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 1473; S.
Vasudeva v. S.D. Mittal, AIR 1962 Bom 53.

45 Article 23(1), The Constitution of India.
212
human beings and begar and other similar forms of forced labour are
prohibited and any contravention of this provision shall be an offence
punishable on accordance with law. Article 23 of the constitution is
distinct from the section 3(1)(iv) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 because section
3(1)(iv) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act1989 applicable to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes only but Article 23 of the Indian constitution provides
fundamental right to all the citizens of India.
5.3.4 Force or Intimidation to Vote or Not to Vote

If non-scheduled castes and non-scheduled tribes forces or
intimidates a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe not
to vote or to vote to a particular candidate or to vote in a manner other
than that provided by law, shall be liable for minimum mandatory
punishment of six years which may extend to five years and shall
liable for fine. 46
The word force has not been defined under the said act, it is
defined under the Indian Penal Code47. It is important to note that in
order to constitute an offence under section 3(1)(vii) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act1989 the
offence must be committed by non-Scheduled and non Scheduled
Tribes against the member of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
46 Section 3(1)(vii), The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

47 Section 349 provides that: A person is said to use force to another if he causes
motion, change of motion, or cessation of motion to that other, or if he causes to

any substance such motion, or change of motion, or cessation of motion as brings
that substance into contact with any part of that other's body, or with anything
which that other is wearing or carrying, or with anything so situated that such
contact affects that other's sense of feeling: Provided that the person causing the
motion, or change of motion, or cessation of motion, causes that motion, change of
motion, or cessation of motion in one of the three ways hereinafter described:
First By his own bodily power.
Secondly By disposing any substance in such a manner that the motion or
change or cessation of motion takes place without any further act on his part, or
on the part of any other person.
Thirdly By inducing any animal to move, to change its motion, or to cease to
move.
213
but under Indian Penal code use of criminal force is punishable under
section 353 even though force used by member of Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes against the member of Scheduled Castes and
Tribes or any other person.
5.3.5 Filing of False, Malicious or Vexatious Suit

Section3(1)(vi) explain that if non-Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes institutes false, malicious or vexatious suit or
criminal or other legal proceedings against a member of a Scheduled
Caste or a Scheduled Tribe shall be liable for punishment not less
than six years may be extend to five years and shall be liable for fine
also.
5.3.6 Causing Insult or Humiliation in Public Place

If non-Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes intentionally
insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view,
shall be liable for minimum mandatory punishment of six years which
may extend to five years and shall be liable for fine. 48
In order to constitute the accusation of an offence of atrocity
under Section 3 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, there must be an allegation that
the accused has insulted intentionally or intimidated the complainant
and such insult or intimidation was done with the intention to
humiliate the complainant.
The most common way to commit atrocity against Scheduled
Caste is to call them by their caste with the sole intention of injuring
their sentiment and feeling. It is rightly observed by Honble Court in
Kaliya Peru Mal v. State of Madras 49 that the specific averments made
in the complaint showed that the accused abused the complainant by

49 1986 CriLJ 1467 Mad; Goluguri Ramakrishna Reddy v. State of A.P. 2005(4) RCR
(Cri.) 638.
214
her caste name, in filthy language, there by causing insult and
intimidation to her. The court held that that all this amounted to an
offence under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
In State of Kerala v. U.P. Hassan50, the accused called the
complainant by term Pulaya Nadi. The word Pulayadimon in
Malayalam indicates meaning adulterer or son of a prostitute. The
court held that this term did not have any caste implication and since
accused had no motive to insult the complaint by his caste name, no
offence under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was committed by the accused.
The facts of Shayam Singh alias Dhannu and Another v. State of
M.P.51 is almost similar to the facts narrated as above. The accused
allegedly called the complainant by caste name (Chamar in this case).
The court held that there was no offence because taking the name of
caste of any citizen of this country itself is not the offence till it is not
taken with the intention to humiliate that person because of his
community.
Utterances made in private place do not constitute an offence
under the Act. The provision is very clear, in so far as it requires the
intentional insult, or intimidation with an intent to humiliate the
member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, to take place (in any
public place within public view), to constitute an offence. Therefore,
every utterance which comes within the purview of this provision by
itself is not an offence, unless it is made in any place within public
view.52
In K. Padma Reddy v. Station House Officer, Bellampalli53, first
information report was registered on a complaint for abusing a person
in the name of caste by the petitioner. The court held that every
50 2002 CriLJ 3441; Sunderlal v. State of M.P., 2012 CriLJ (NOC)391(MP).

51 2006 (2) RCR (Cri.) 107 (M.P.).
52 K. Padma Reddy v. Station House Officer, Bellampalli, 2003 (2) ALD (Cri) 421 (AP).
53 Ibid; Suhail Fasih v. State of U.P. and Anr., 2012 CriLJ (NOC)177(All).
215
utterance which came within the purview of provision of Act by itself
was not offence, unless it was made in a place within public view. In
the instant case scene of offence was Chamber of Municipal
Commissioner. As there was no allegation to effect that said utterance
was made within public view, therefore, offence could not be said to
have been committed by the petitioner.
It must be noted that to attract the punishment of atrocity, it is
necessary that insult or humiliation of a member of Scheduled Caste
and Scheduled Tribes should take place within public view. In Potluri
Poonam Chandra Prabhakara Rao v. State of A.P.54 accused abusing a
member of Scheduled Caste on telephone on the ground of his caste.
The court held that no offence made out because this was not done in
public view.
Similarly, in J. Sumana v. Endluri Aseerwadamma,55 the
petitioner was alleged to have abused in his chamber (the
complainant) on the ground of caste. But there was no public in
chamber and it was not within the public view. As such, no offence
could be said to be committed under section 3(1)(x).
Similarly, in Prakesh Gopalrao Pohare v. State of Maharashtra &
anr.,56 a member of upper caste abusing the scheduled caste member
on the basis of caste. The incident took place inside the cabin of editor
of daily newspaper. The court held that cabin of editor is exclusively a
private property and public in general cannot have free access to such
cabin. The accused is not liable under section 3(1)(x) of act because
the incident could not took place within public view.
Further for the punishment under section 3 (A non-Scheduled
Caste member shall be liable for punishment under the Section 3 of
54 2002 (1) RCR (Cri.) 2001 A.P.; State of Rajasthan v. Dipti Ram, 2001 (4) RCR (Cri.)
765 (Raj.).
55 2003(1)CriLJ 252.
562008 CriLJ (NOC) 289(Bom); Ms. Subhadra Sushil Anand & Ors v. State of
Maharashtra, 2008 CriLJ 672 (Bom); Rasikbhai Gopalbhai Patel v. State of
Gujarat , 2008 CriLJ 34 (Guj); Rafikbhai S. Dodiya and Ors v. State of Gujarat,
2008 CriLJ1197(Guj); Mahasukhrai Keshaulal Joshi v. State of Gujarat 2008
CriLJ (NOC))(Guj).
216
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989, if accused has knowledge that complainant belongs to
Scheduled Caste.
In State of Karnataka v. Irappa Dhareppa Hosaman,57 the
allegation against the accused was that he insulted the complainant
in name of his caste. The accused pleaded that he has no knowledge
that complainant belonged to Scheduled Caste. The court held that
accused shall not be liable for the offence of atrocity because he had
no knowledge that complainant belonged to Scheduled Castes and
thereby he had no intention to commit any atrocity
In Swaran Singh v. State through Standing Counsel & Another,58
the complainant is belonging to scheduled caste community and he is
called by his caste name i.e., chamar by upper caste member with the
intention to insult or humiliate him in place within public view is
certainly offence under section 3(1)(x) and the court held that
expression took place within public view which is used in section
3(1)(x)must not be confused with expression public place.
5.3.7 Assault with Intent to Outraging Modesty of Women

Whenever non-scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, assaults
or uses force to any woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe with intent to dishonour or outrage her modesty,
shall be liable for minimum mandatory punishment of six months
which may extend to five years and shall liable for fine. 59
An Offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of Act is an aggravated form of
offence under Section 354, IPC. Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act which deals
with assaults or use of force on any woman belonging to Scheduled
Caste or Scheduled Tribe with intent to or dishonour or outrage her
57 2001 (3) (Cri.) 671 (Kar.), C.T. Raveenran v. State of Kerala; 2011 CriLJ 1408.
58 2008 CriLJ 4369, Goluguri Ramakrishna Reddy v. State of A.P., 2005 (4) RCR
(Cri) 638, N. Adithayan v. The Travancore Devaswon Board and Others, AIR 2002
SC3538.
59Sectio3(1)(xi), The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
217
modesty is an aggravated form of the offence under Section 354, IPC.
The only difference between Section 3(1)(xi) and Section 354 is
essentially the caste or the tribe to which the victim belongs. If she
belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, Section 3(1)(xi)
applies. The other difference is that in Section 3(1)(xi) dishonour of
such victim is also made an offence.60
In Karan Singh v. State of Haryana61, complainant and her
companion were molested as they were women. The court held that as
such women were not molested because of the fact that they belonged
to Scheduled Caste, hence, accused could not be prosecuted for
atrocities on Scheduled Caste woman under Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989.
Ashok Bapurao Thorat v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.,62 In
instant case, allegation against the accused that he had sexual
intercourse with complainant belonging to the scheduled caste. The
contents of FIR showing that the complainant was consenting party
and there was love affair between them. The court held that
complainant was not subjected to sexual intercourse because she was
scheduled caste woman. The accused is not liable for punishment
under section 3(1)(xi).
In Mahendra kumar v State of Madhya Pradesh63,the prosecutxic
Parmila Bai lodged a written report on 30-3-1992, in the police Station
that on 28-3-1992, in night at about 9oclock, the appellant Mahendra
Kumar made an assault and tried to outrage her modesty near the
house of Kotiwarin, while she was returning to her house with her
aunt Agasiya Bai after watching moving on television. On the basis of
the report of the protsecutrix, an FIR was registered for an offence
punishable under section 3(i)(xi) of the act and section 354 of the IPC
against the appellant by police station, Arjunda. The allegations
60 Vidyadharan v. State of Kerala, 2004 CriLJ 605 (SC).

61 2004 CriLJ NOC 352 (P&H).
62 2007(2) BCR 426(Cri).
63 2010 CriLJ 1167.
218
against the appellant are that he caught the hand of the prosecutrix
and told her also Chalo Waha Le Jayenge, on which the prosecutrix
called her aunt. Her aunt also hurled abuses on the appellant and he
ran away. Thereafter, the prosecutrix came to her house and narrated
the incident to her mother.
Shri H.B. Agrawal, learned senior Advocate for appellant argued
that conviction and sentence is illegal as the entire trial was vitiated
because the learned special judge directly took cognizance without
there being any committal proceedings. On the other hand, Shri
Satish Gupta, learned government advocate supported the judgment
delivered by the special judge and submitted that no interference is
warranted with the conviction and sentence of the appellant. He also
stated that evidence adduced by the prosecution clearly touched all
the facts and the prosecution had completely proved its case beyond
doubt so conviction and sentence is proper. So far as committal
proceedings are concerned, he drew the attention of this court to
section 465 of the Cr.P.C which falls within chapter xxxv of the code
under the caption Irregular proceeding in which it is provided that
finding, sentence or order passed by a court of competent jurisdiction
could not be set aside merely on the ground of irregularities if no
prejudice is caused to the accused. The Chhattisgarh High Court
confirmed the sentence of Special Court, however, sentence of 18
months rigorous imprisonment would be too harsh and substantive
sentence of appellant liable to be reduced to 6 month simple
imprisonment from 18 month R.I.
In State of Maharashtra v. Vijay Chandrabhan Gaikwad64,
Complainant does not disclose the caste of accused as well as
complainant on ground of non-mentioning of caste of accused as well
as complainant in complaint. The Plea of complainant is that caste
certificate issued by Executive Magistrate was produced and it shows
his caste but officer who had issued caste certificate in the favour of
64 2010 CriLJ (NOC)104 (BOM).
219
complainant had no authority to issue caste certificate and caste
certificate was not verified by caste scrutiny committee. The accuseds
acquittal was proper.
5.3.8 Sexual Exploitation

The expression sexual exploitation has not been defined under
this Act but it does include sexual intercourse without her consent65
or when the consent of a tribal woman employee was obtained by an
upper caste employer by promising to marry her66 Section 3(1)(xii)
stated that if upper caste member being in a position to dominate the
will of a woman belonging to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes
and use that position to exploit her sexually to which she would not
have otherwise agreed shall be liable for minimum mandatory
punishment of six years which may extend to five years and shall
liable for fine. 67
Similarly in Dhruvendra Singh and Others v. State of
Rajasthan,68 a gang rape was committed on a minor girl of 16 years
belonging to Scheduled Caste. The court held that conviction under
Section 3 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989, cannot be sustained unless prosecutrix was
raped knowingly that she was a Scheduled Caste girl. No such
evidence is on record which shows that accused has knowledge that
she belongs to Scheduled Caste and there by conviction under Section
3 set aside.
In Manga v. State of Haryana,69 the victim of rape was a deaf
and dumb girl of 13 years and she was not examined. However, the
prosecution evidence against the accused consisted of a statement of
an eye-witness, which was corroborated by blood-stained Salwar of
65 Ashok Kumar Laha v. Mahendra Prasad, 1995 CrLJ 1560 Orissa.

66 Gujula Satyanarayana Reddy v. State of A.P. 1997 CrLJ 948.
67 Sectio3(1)(xii), The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act1989.
68 2002 (2) RCR (Cri.) 185 (Raj.).
69 AIR 1979 SC 1194.
220
the prosecutrix and the medical evidence of the doctor, who had
examined the victim at the time of the rape and found that her hymen
was torn and ruptured, It was held by the Apex Court that mere
circumstance that the doctor did not find redness or inflammation
around bruises of the victim would not be sufficient to put the
prosecution case out of Court because the fact that there was a
rupture of the hymen and a bruise around the hymen was sufficient
to prove the act of rape. It was further held that since the prosecutrix
was deaf and dumb girl of only 13 years of age, no useful purpose
would have been served by examining her and moreover, if there was
any infirmity in the prosecution case by her non-examination, the
same was removed by the examination of PW 4, eye-witness, who was
a full-fledged eye-witness to the act of rape. Similar are the facts of
the instant case. Hence, the non-examination of prosecutrix Chhoti
aged 5-6 years, who had not developed the faculty of understanding,
is not fatal. The defence taken by the appellant that Kumari Chhoti
might have received injuries by inserting a stick in her vagina is
patently absurd, false and a creature of afterthought. Firstly, no stick
was found at the place of the occurrence. Secondly, no such question
was put to any of the prosecution witnesses by the appellant.
Admittedly, the prosecutrix belongs to Meghwal community which is a
Scheduled Caste.
In such circumstances, the learned trial Judge has correctly
scanned and evaluated the prosecution evidence and has not
committed any illegality either of fact or law in finding the appellant
guilty of the offence under Section 376, IPC and under Section 3(xi),
Scheduled castes & Scheduled tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act
1989.70
5.3.9 Corruption or Fouling the Water

If non-scheduled castes and non-scheduled tribes corrupts or
70 Thama Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 1996 CriLJ 502 (Raj.).
221
fouls the water of any spring, reservoir or any other source ordinarily
used by members of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes so
as to render it less fit for the purpose for which it is ordinarily used
shall be liable for minimum mandatory punishment of six months
which may extend to five years and shall liable for fine. 71
According to section 3(1)(vii) there must be corrupting or fouling
the water of any spring, reservoir or any other source ordinarily used
by Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. This must be done so as
to render it less fit for the purpose for which it is ordinarily used.
Indian penal code also provides the punishment for such act but there
is difference between section 277 of IPC and section 3(1)(xiii) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act1989. Under IPC public spring or reservoir words has been used
but under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act 1989 any spring, reservoir or any other source words
has been used. Section 3(1)(xiii) provides the punishment only to non-
Scheduled Castes and non-Scheduled Tribes but IPC provide
punishment to any one who violate the section 277 of IPC.
5.3.10 Denial of Customary Right of Passage

According to section 3(1)(xiv),if non-Scheduled Castes and non-
Scheduled Tribes denies a member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe any customary right of passage to a place of public
resort or obstructs such member so as to prevent him from using or
having access to a place of public resort to which other members right
of passage to a place of public resort or obstructs such member so as
to prevent him from using or having access to place of public resort to
which other members of public or any section thereof have a right to
use or access to the public resort , shall be liable for minimum
mandatory punishment of six months which may extend to five years
71Section 3(1)(vii), The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

222
and shall liable for fine. 72
5.3.11 False or Fabricates Evidence

If the member of upper caste gives or fabricates false
evidence intending thereby to cause, or knowing it be likely that
he will thereby cause, any member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe to be convicted of an offence which is capital by
the law for the time being in force shall be punished with
imprisonment for life and with fine; and if an innocent member of
a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe be convicted and
executed in consequence of such false or fabricated evidence, the
person who gives or fabricates such false evidence, shall be
punished with death.
This section provides the death penalty even though the
imposition of death penalty has been made an exception cases
and should be pronounced only rarest of rare cases.73 False
evidence defined under Indian penal code.74
Section 3(2)(ii) provides that if the non Scheduled Castes and
non Scheduled Tribes gives or fabricates false evidence intending
thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby
cause, any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe to
be convicted of an offence which is not capital but punishable with
imprisonment for a term of seven years or upwards, shall be
punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less
than six months but which may extend to seven years or upwards
and with fine.

73 Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 898.
74 Section 191, Indian Penal Code runs as under:
Whoever, being legally bound by an oath or by an express provision of law to state

the truth, or being bound by law to make a declaration upon any subject, makes
any statement which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false or
does not believe to be true, is said to give false evidence.
223
In Bachcha v. State of U.P.,75 the prosecutrix was playing with
her brother Jai Narain in front of her house on 16-6-1996 at about
4.00 P.M. (girl of tender age whose name need not be indicated and
she can be described as victim or prosecutrix). The appellant
(original respondent) came there and enticed her away to his house
and closed the door. After sometimes the cries of the girl were
heard by Jai Narain (P.W.4) and he told this fact to the complainant
who along with Bhagwan Das, Khem Chand and Pramod reached
at the house of the appellant. As the door was closed, they all made
entry from the roof and apprehended the appellant red handed
committing rape with the prosecutrix. It was 4.30 P.M. The
Prosecutrix was all naked and was bleeding through her vagina.
The complainant got the report of the incident and gave it at the
police station Jalapur, Dist. Hamirpur. The special judge,
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, Hamirpur found the
appellant guilty of offence punishable under section 376 read with
section 511 IPC. And section 3(2)(5) of Scheduled castes and
Scheduled Tribes Act. After that, appellant (original respondent)
filed an appeal to the high court against the order of special court.
The Allahabad High Court observed that the statement of the
complainant and his son neither proved the offence of rape nor
attempt to commit rape. The statement of prosecutrix proved that
the appellant (respondent) undressed her and himself and after
lying her down on the ground sat on her. There is nothing visible
from the statement of the prosecutrix also that any attempt of
penetration was ever done by the appellant to penetrate the
conviction under section 376/511 of the IPC could not be said to be
legal. So far as the conviction and sentence reordered under
section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes Act is
concerned, that is wholly unwarranted.
Hence, the question arose before the court whether the
75 2008 CriLJ 483.
224
accused should be acquitted or whether he should be convicted for
committing any other offence pertaining to forcibly outrage the
modesty of the girl. In the situation the aid of section 22276 of the
Cr.P.C. has been taken. The court held that he is guilty for offence
punishable under 36677 and section 35478 of Indian Penal Code.
5.4 PUNISHMENT FOR NEGLECT OF DUTIES

Whoever, being a public servant but not being a member of a
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, wilfully neglects his duties
required to be performed by him under this Act, shall be punishable
with imprisonment for a term which shall not be more than six
months but which may extend to one year.79
A bare reading of Section 4 shows that the offences, which are
punishable under this Section, must have been committed in respect
of some duty to be performed under the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. If any duty is to
be performed under any other Act (including the Code of Criminal
Procedure), then the provisions of Section 4 of the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 do not apply.
There were allegations that petitioner-accused had not allotted
76 Section 222, Criminal Procedure Code provides that in case where the accused is
charged with a major offence and the said charge is not proved the accused may
be convicted of minor offence though he was not charge with it.
77 Section 366 of IPC stated that:
Whoever kidnaps or abducts any woman with intent that she may be compelled,
or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled, to marry any person against
her will, or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, or
knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, shall
be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend
to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and whoever, by means of criminal
intimidation as defined in this Code or of abuse of authority or any other method
of compulsion, induces any woman to go from any place with intent that she may
be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit
intercourse with another person shall also be punishable as aforesaid.
78 Section 354 of IPC runs as under:-
Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or

knowing it to be likely that he will there by outrage her modesty, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years,
or with fine, or with both.
79 Section 4, The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act 1989.
225
the complainant a specific railway quarter at a particular place. The
petitioner was appointed by Railway Board for taking care of welfare of
the members of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. As no material
was shown that she had been appointed by provisions of the Act and
she had neglected to perform her duties required to the performed by
her under the Act, therefore, order for issuing process against the
petitioner was quashed.80
Where averments made in the private complaint had not stated
that accused police officials had wilfully neglected their duties by not
properly investigating offence under the Act. Therefore, ingredients of
Section 4 were not made out to proceed against the accused.81
Where case was investigated and found to be mistake of fact.
Investigating officer opined that complainant was converted to
Christianity and was not member of Scheduled Caste. Question
whether complainant was suffering from any liability on communal
hatred even after his conversion was question of fact to be decided on
trial. The Court granted opportunity to complainant to agitate his
rights on merits by filing petition before Judicial Magistrate.82
5.5 ENHANCE PUNISHMENT FOR SUBSEQUENT CONVICTION

When any person is convicted for offence under section and if
such person committed any offence subsequent to second offence,
shall be punished which reads as under:-
Whoever, having already been convicted of an offence under this
section is convicted for the second offence or any offence subsequent
to second offence, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term
which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to the
punishment for that offence.83
80 Alka A. Misra v. J.P. Shoke, 2003 CriLJ 1333 (Bom).

81 Ananda Pangala v. T.R. Jagannath, 2003 CriLJ 3215 (Kant).
82 Arumugan v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2004 CriLJ NOC 228 (Mad).
83 Section 5, The Scheduled Caste sand Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989.
226
5.6 APPLICATION OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE INDIAN
PENAL CODE
Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the provisions of
section 34, Chapter III, Chapter IV, Chapter V, Chapter VA, section
149 and Chapter XXIII of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), shall, so
far as may be, apply for the purposes of this Act as they apply for the
purposes of the Indian Penal Code.84
5.7 FORFEITURE OF PROPERTY OF CERTAIN PERSONS

The special court may by order in writing declare that any
property, movable or immovable or both which has been used for
commission of offences which had been mention under the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), shall stand
forfeited by the Government.85 Such powers given to special court
under Section 7 run as under:-
(1) Where a person has been convicted of any offence punishable
under this act, the Special Court may, in addition to awarding
any punishment, by order in writing, declare that any property,
movable or immovable or both, belonging to the person, which
has been used for the commission of that offence, shall stand
forfeited to the Government.
(2) Where any person is accused of any offence under this act, it
shall be open to the Special Court trying him to pass an order
that all or any of the properties, movable or immovable or both,
belonging to him, shall, during the period of such trial, be
attached, and where such trial ends in conviction, the property
so attached shall be liable to the extent it is required for the
purpose of realisation of any fine imposed under this Act.
84Section 6, The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

Act, 1989.
85 Section 7, Ibid.
227
5.8 PRESUMPTION AS TO OFFENCES
The Present Act86 says that if any person committed any crime
under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of
Atrocities)Act198,the court presume that such has been under guilty
under the said act unless it contrary is proved by the accused person.
Section 8 Says that:-
In a prosecution for an offence under this Chapter, if it is proved that-
(d) the accused rendered any financial assistance to a person
accused of, or reasonably suspected of committing, an offence
under this Act, the Special Court shall presume, unless the
contrary is proved, that such person had abetted the offence;
(e) a group of persons committed an offence under this Act and if it
is proved that the offence committed was a sequel to any
existing dispute regarding land or any other matter, it shall be
presumed that the offence was committed in furtherance of the
common intention or in prosecution of the common object.
5.9 CONFERMENT OF POWERS

State Government may confer any power of police officer to any
officer of State Government like power of arrest, investigation and
prosecution of the person before any Special Court. Such powers
exercise by police officer under the criminal procedure code in such
district or part thereof87. Such powers confer to State Government
under Section 9 of the act which provides:-
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code or in any other
provision of this Act, the State Government may, if it considers
it necessary or expedient so to do:-
(a) for the prevention of and for coping with any offence
under this Act, or
(b) for any case or class or group of cases under this Act, in
any district or part thereof, confer, by notification in the
86 Section 8, Ibid.
87 Section 9, Ibid.
228
Official Gazette, on any officer of the State Government,
the powers exercisable by a police officer under the Code
in such district or part thereof or, as the case may be, for
such case or class or group of cases, and in particular the
powers of arrest, investigation and prosecution of persons
before any Special Court.
(2) All officers of police and all other officers of Government shall
assist the officer referred to in sub-section (1) in the execution of
the provisions of this Act or any rule, scheme or order made
there under.
(3) The provisions of the Code shall, so far as may be, apply to the
exercise of the powers by an officer under sub-section (1).
5.10 REMOVAL OF PERSON LIKELY TO COMMIT OFFENCE

Section 10 provides that where the Special Court is satisfied,
upon a complaint or a police report that a person is likely to commit
an offence under Chapter II of this Act in any area included in
Scheduled Area or tribal areas, as referred to in Article 244 of the
Constitution, it may, by order in writing, direct such person to remove
himself beyond the limits of such area, by such route and within such
time as may be specified in the order, and not to return to that area
from which he was directed to remove himself for such period, not
exceeding two years, as may he specified in the order.
The Special Court shall, along with the order under sub-section
(1) of Section (10), communicate to the person directed under that
sub-section the grounds on which such order has been made.
The Special Court may revoke or modify the order made under
sub-section (1) of Section (10), for the reasons to be recorded in
writing, on the representation made by the person against whom such
order has been made or by any other person on his behalf within
thirty days from the date of the order.
229
5.11 PROCEDURE ON FAILURE OF PERSON TO REMOVE
HIMSELF FROM AREA AND ENTER THEREON AFTER
REMOVAL
Section 11 provides that if a person to whom a direction has
been issued under section 10 to remove himself from any area-
(a) fails to remove himself as directed; or
(b) having so removed himself enters such area within the period
specified in the order, otherwise than with the permission in
writing of the Special Court under sub-section (2) of
Section11,the Special Court may cause him to be arrested and
removed in police custody to such place outside such area as
the Special Court may specify.
The Special Court may, by order in writing, permit any person
in respect of whom an order under section 10 has been made, to
return to the area from which he was directed to remove himself for
such conditions as may be specified in such order and may require
him to execute a bond with or without surety for the due observation
of the conditions imposed.
The Special Court may at any time revoke any such
permission.88 Any person who, with such permission, returns to the
area from which he was directed to remove himself shall observe the
conditions imposed, and at the expiry of the temporary period for
which he was permitted to return, or on the revocation of such
permission before the expiry of such temporary period, shall remove
himself outside such area and shall not return thereto within the
unexpired portion specified under section 10 without a fresh
permission.89 If a person fails to observe any of the conditions
imposed or to remove himself accordingly or having so removed
himself enters or returns to such area without fresh permission the
Special Court may cause him to be arrested and removed in police
custody to such place outside such area as the Special Court may
88 Section11(3), Ibid.
89 Section 11(4), Ibid.
230
specify.
5.12 TAKING MEASUREMENTS AND PHOTOGRAPHS, ETC., OF

PERSONS AGAINST WHO ORDER UNDER SECTION 10 IS
MADE
The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act 1989 establish that every person against whom an
order has been made under section 10 shall, if so required by the
Special Court, allow his measurements and photographs to be taken
by a police officer.90If any person referred to in sub-section (1) of
section 12, when required to allow his measurements or photographs
to be taken resists or refuses to allow his taking of such
measurements or photographs, it shall be lawful to use all necessary
means to secure the taking thereof.
When such person resistance to or refusal to allow the taking of
measurements or photographs shall be deemed to be an offence under
section 186 of the Indian Penal Code 1860.Where an order under
section 10 is revoked, all measurements and photographs (including
negatives) taken under said section shall be destroyed or made over to
the person against whom such order has been made.
5.13 PENALTY FOR NON-COMPLIANCE OF ORDER MADE UNDER

SECTION 10
Any person contravening an order of the Special Court made
under section 10 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term
which may extend to one year and with fine.91
5.14 SPECIAL COURT

The State Government shall, with the concurrence of the Chief
Justice of the High Court, by notification in the Official Gazette,
specify for each district a Court of Session to be a Special Court to try
the offences under this Act for the purpose of providing for speedy
90 Section 12, Ibid.

231
trial.92
This section provides that the offences under the said Act shall
be tried by a Special Court. Section 14 provides that for the purpose of
providing speedy trial, the State Government shall with the
concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court by a notification in
the official Gazette specify for each district a Court of Session to be a
Special Court to try the offences under this Act.
Section 14 read with Section 2(d) makes it clear that the Special
Court is to be manned by a Sessions Judge. Section 2(d) of the Act
defines the Special Court as a Court of Session specified as a Special
Court in Section 14. Every Sessions Court is not a Special Court, but
every Special Court shall be a Court of Session by virtue of the
notification issued by the State Government. Further it is clearly
provided in Section 14 of the Act that the Special Courts are
constituted for the purpose of speedy disposal of the cases. Therefore,
the intention of the Parliament is very clear that the legislature in its
wisdom does not want any delay in disposal of the cases, and,
therefore, the intention of the Legislature is very clear that they want
to dispense with the committal procedure. If the intention of the
Legislature was to confer power on the Sessions Courts, there was no
need to create a Special Courts for trial of the offences under the Act.
Further the Special Court has been given the powers which a Sessions
Court does not enjoy.93
Special Court Justice Ramaswamy observed in the case of State
of Karnataka v. Ingale94, that more than seventy-five percent of the
cases brought under the Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 end in acquittal at all levels. The
situation has not improved much since 1992 according to the figures
given by the 2002 Annual Report dealing with Scheduled Casted and

93 Dara Singh v. Tej Kaur, 2000 CriLJ 3145 (P&H).
94 (1992) 3 SCR 284.
232
Scheduled Tribes (prevention of Atrocities) Act1989 95.The total cases
filed in 2002 only 21.72% were disposed of, and, of those, a mere
2.31% ended in conviction. The number of acquittals is 6 times more
than the number of convictions and more than 70 percent of the cases
are still pending96.
It is a well-settled law, that Section 193, Cr. P.C. has no
application to the Special Court constituted under the Act. In such a
situation, one has to look to the provisions of the Act which has to be
followed by the Special Court for trying the offences under the Act.
The word trial may having regard to the context, be wide
enough and include other steps preceding the trial. But there is
nothing in the language of Section 14 or any other provisions of the
Act which warrant such wide interpretation. As already noted,
whenever powers of Court of original jurisdiction were intended to be
conferred on the Court of Session constituted as Special Court under
various Central enactment, a specific provision to that effect is made
including dispensing with the committal procedure. But there is no
such provision in Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act. In view of this omission, the bar under Section 193,
Cr. P.C. becomes applicable to the Special Court under the said Act by
virtue of the language contained in Section 4(2), Cr. P.C.97
Special Court means a Court of Session specified as a Special
Court in Section 14. Thus, under this definition, irrespective of the
fact that a Special Court is created under Section 14, it is a Court of
Session. In other words, it can safely be said that a Court of Sessions
has been called a Special Court within the meaning of Section 14 and
no special provision has been made under the Act, providing for any
procedure to be followed by the Special Court, by virtue of provisions
95 The Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Annual Report on The

Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
12(2002).
96 http://www.censusindia.gov.in 2001 Census visited on 4th March 2010.
97 Referring Officer represented by A.P. v. Police Station, Khammam-II, 1999 CriLJ
4173 (AP).
233
of Sections 4 and 5 of the Code, general procedure provided under the
Code has to be followed.98
Thus the Court of Session is specified to conduct a trial and no
other Court can conduct the trial of offences under the Act. Why did
Parliament provide that only a Court of Session can be specified as a
Special Court? Evidently the Legislature wanted the Special Court to
be a Court of Session. Hence the particular Court of Session, even
after being specified as a Special Court, would continue to be
essentially a Court of Session and designation of it as a Special Court
would not denude it of its character or even powers as a Court of
Session. The trial in such a Court can be conducted only in the
manner provided in Chapter XVIII of the Code which contains
fascicules of provisions for trial before a Court of Session. In other
words, unless it is positively and specifically provided differently no
Court of Session can take cognizance of any offence directly, without
the case being committed to it by a Magistrate.
It was held that the Special Court envisaged by Section 14 is
not another Court of Session but is distinct and separate from it. It
has to deal with the cases before it not as a Court of Session but as
a Special Court, and, therefore, it is not necessary that it could deal
with only those cases which would have been triable by a Court of
Session if the Special Court had not been created. It is also not
necessary for the same reason that cases have to be committed by a
Magisterial Court to it. Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
applies only to a Court of Session and not to the Special Court
specified under Section 14 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act1989.99
The Special Court does not get jurisdiction unless the case is
committed to the Court of Sessions under Section 193, Cr. P.C. All the
cases falling under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
98 Meera Bai v. Bhujbal, 1995 CriLJ 2376 (MP).

99 Bhuralal v. State, 1999 CriLJ 3552 (Raj) (FB).
234
(Prevention of Atrocities)Act 1989 have to be tried by the Special Court
only on the order of committal passed by the Magistrate having
territorial jurisdiction. At whatever stages, these cases are pending, it
has to be sent back to the concerned Magistrate on receipt of the
cases, the magistrate has to number the case as P.R.C. and if he finds
that these cases are triable by the Special Court, then he has to pass
the order under Section 193, Cr. P.C. is without jurisdiction, and,
therefore, the whole exercise done by the Sessions Judge presiding
over the Special Court is null and void.
Where the accused was alleged to have committed offence
under, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act 1989. His bail application could be disposed of by
Sessions Judge or Additional Sessions Judge even though they were
not special Courts.100
5.15 SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The State Government shall, by notification in the Official
Gazette, specify a Public Prosecutor or appoint an advocate who has
been in practice as an advocate for not less than seven years for every
Special Court, as a Special Public Prosecutor for the purpose of
conducting cases in that Court.101
5.16 POWER OF STATE GOVERNMENT TO IMPOSE COLLECTIVE

FINE
The provisions of section 10A of the Protection of Civil Rights
Act, 1955 (22 of 1955) shall, so far as may be, apply for the purposes
of imposition and realisation of collective fine and for all other matters
connected therewith under this Act.
100 State v. Mahalingu, 2001 CriLJ 237 (Kant).

Act 1989.
235
5.17 PREVENTIVE ACTION TO BE TAKEN BY THE LAW AND
ORDER MACHINERY
A District Magistrate or a Sub-divisional Magistrate or any other
Executive Magistrate or any police officer not below the rank of a
Deputy Superintendent of Police may, on receiving information and
after such inquiry as he may think necessary, has reason to believe
that a person or a group of persons not belonging to the Scheduled
Castes or the Scheduled Tribes, residing in or frequenting any place
within the local limits of his jurisdiction is likely to commit an offence
or has threatened to commit any offence under this Act and is of the
opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding may declare
such an area to be an area prone to atrocities and take necessary
action for keeping the peace and good behaviour and maintenance of
public order and tranquillity and may take preventive action.102The
provisions of Chapters VIII, X and XI of the criminal procedure code
shall, so far as may be, apply for the purposes of sub-section of
Section 17 of Act.
The State Government may, by notification in the Official
Gazette, make one or more schemes specifying the manner in which
the officers referred to in sub-section (1) of section 17 of said act shall
take appropriate action specified in such scheme or schemes to
prevent atrocities and to restore the feeling of security amongst the
members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.
5.18 ANTICIPATORY BAIL

Section 18 of the said Act totally denies the benefit of Section
438 of the Code in respect of even offences for which comparatively
minor punishable is prescribed. The Police Officer who registers a case
under the Act has no discretion not to arrest the offenders; if he fails
to discharge his duty or acts negligently, he incurs the risk of being
prosecuted for an offence under Section 4 of the Act. The object of the
236
salute is to ensure advancement of members of Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes by protecting them from harassment, humiliation,
disgrace, indignity, exploitation and the like by members of stronger
sections of the society. This purpose is not served by wholesale denial
of the benefit of Section 438 of the Code to all classes of offenders
under the Act. The classification between whole classes of offenders
under the Act on one hand and offenders under other laws has no
nexus with the objects to be achieved by the Act. Section 18 of the Act
offends Article 14 of the Constitution. In Babu Gavada v. State of
Karnataka103, the court held that the provision of section 438 of
Cri.P.C is not available under the offence committed under section 3
of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities)
Act 1989.
An Offence under Section 3 of the Act constitutes a separate
class and could not be compared with offences under IPC. Application
for grant of anticipatory bail not to be thrown out unless accusations
did not constitute an offence under the Act. In the absence of material
prima facie suspecting petitioner of having committed an offence
under the Act, the ban imposed by Section 18 the circumstances
deserves the benefit of anticipatory bail.104
Whether accused has any right to claim anticipatory bail, when
case registered under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Act,
Question was also considered by the Supreme Court in the case of
State of M.P. v. Ram Krishna Balothia.105 The main argument advanced
before the Supreme Court was as to whether right to seek anticipatory
bail is an essential ingredient of Article 21 of the Constitution or not.
The Supreme Court observed that:-
Anticipatory bail cannot be granted as a matter of right. It is
essentially a statutory right conferred long after the coming into force
of the Constitution. It cannot be considered as an essential ingredient
103 1996(1) RCR453.

104 Somesh Das v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2004 (13) AIC 96 (Chhattisgarh).
105 1995 CriLJ 2076 (SC).
237
of Article 21 of the Constitution. And its non-application to a certain
special category of offences cannot be considered as violative of Article
21.
The Supreme Court further held that:-
Of course, the offences enumerated under the present case are
very different from those under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1987. However, looking to the historical background
relating to the practice of untouchability and the social attitudes
which lead to the commission of such offences against Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes, there is justification for an
apprehension that if the benefit of anticipatory bail is made available
to the persons who are alleged to have committed such offences, there
is every likelihood of their misusing their liberty while on anticipatory
bail to terrorise their victims and to prevent a proper investigation. It
is in this context that Section 18 has been incorporated in the said
Act. It cannot be considered as in any manner violative of Article 21.
It is obvious from the aforesaid that if a case has been registered
under the Act, a person has no right to claim anticipatory bail. There
is a specific embargo because of Section 18 of the Act. Section 438 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure is not available to persons committing
offences under the Act.
It is clear that even though several penal provisions are
contained in the IPC and the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955,
nevertheless, the atrocities against the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes persons did not subside and they became victims of
attack by vested interests and there has been an increase in the
disturbing trend of commission of certain atrocities like making the
Scheduled Castes person eat inedible substance like human excreta
and attacks on and mass killings of helpless Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes and rape of women belonging to the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. Therefore, the Parliament
considered it necessary to pass a special law viz., the Act and specify
238
the offences and the punishments therefore. While doing so, it was
also considered necessary that in order to have an effective
enforcement of the provisions of the Act and to ensure that such
atrocities are not repeated, the provision of Section 438 of the Code of
Civil Procedure are not made trailable for the offenders under the Act.
Therefore, the Parliament has enacted the provision as contained in
Section 18 of the Act, to exclude the applicability of Section 438 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, in relation to any case involving arrest of
any person on an accusation of having committed an offence under
the Act. It may be pointed out here that the right to seek anticipatory
bail when any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on
accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, has been
created under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the
year 1973.
Therefore, the question of violation of the right guaranteed
under Article 21 also has no substance. Article 21 does not ensure or
does not confer a right that a person who commits an offence or those
accused of commissioning of certain offences, would not be liable to be
dealt with in accordance with the valid provisions of the Act.106
5.19 SECTION 360 OF THE CODE NOT TO APPLY TO PERSONS

GUILTY OF AN OFFENCE UNDER THE ACT
The provisions of section 360 of the Code and the provisions of
the Probation of Offender Act, 1958 (20 of 1958) shall not apply to any
person above the age of eighteen years who is found guilty of having
committed an offence under this Act.107
5.20 OVERRIDE OTHER LAWS

Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the provision of this Act
shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith
contained in any other law for the time being in force. It is the duty of
106 Raju Gounder v. Union of India, 1995 CriLJ 3390 (Mad).

Act 1989.
239
Government to ensure effective implementation of the Act.108
5.21 DUTY OF GOVERNMENT TO ENSURE EFFECTIVE

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ACT
The present Section109 impose the duty on the Central as well as

State Government to take necessary measures for the proper
implementation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act1989 like legal aid to Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes, maintenance expenses to witnesses, including the
victims of atrocities, during investigation and trial of offence under
said act etc. The Section 21 provides as under:-
(1) Subject to such rules as the Central Government may make in
this behalf, the State Government shall take such measures as
may be necessary for the effective implementation of this Act.
(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the
foregoing provisions, such measures may include,-
(i). the provision of adequate facilities, including legal aid, to
the persons subjected to enable them to avail themselves
of justice;
(ii). the provision for travelling and maintenance expenses to
witnesses, including the victims of atrocities, during
investigation and trial of offence under this Act:
(iii). the provision for the economic and social rehabilitation of
the victims of the atrocities
(iv). the appointment of officers for initiating or exercising
supervision over prosecutions for the contravention of the
provisions of this Act;
(v). the setting up of committees at such appropriate levels as
the State Government may think fit to assist that
Government in formulation or implementation of such
measures;

240
(vi). Provision for a periodic survey of the working of the
provisions of this Act with a view to suggesting measures
for the better implementation of the provisions of this Act;
(vii). the identification of the areas where the members of the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes are likely to be
subjected to atrocities and adoption of such measures so as
to ensure safety for such members.
(3) The Central Government shall take such steps as may be
necessary to co-ordinate the measures taken by the State
Governments under sub-section (1).
(4) The Central Government shall, every year, place on the table of
each House of Parliament a report on the measures taken by
itself and by the State Governments in pursuance of the
provisions of this section.
5.22 PROTECTION OF ACTION TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH

The Section 22 of the said act says that no suit, prosecution or
other legal proceedings shall lie against the Central Government or
against the State Government or any officer or authority of
Government or any other person for anything which is in good faith
done or intended to be done under this Act.
5.23 POWER TO MAKE RULES

The central Government has power to make rules for carrying
out the purpose of said Act. The Section 23 runs as under:-
(1) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official
Gazette, make rules for carrying out the purposes of this Act.
(2) Every rule made under this Act shall be laid, as soon as may be
after it is made, before each House of Parliament, while it is in
session for a total period of thirty days which may be comprised
of one session or of two or of more successive sessions, and if,
before the expiry of the session immediately following the
session or the successive sessions aforesaid, both Houses agree
241
in making any modification in the rule or both Houses agree
that the rule should not be made, the rule shall thereafter have
effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case
may be so , however, that any such modification or annulment
shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously
done under that rule.
Section 23 of the Prevention of Atrocities Act authorises the
Central Government to frame rules for carrying out the purpose of the
Act. It was the drawing power from this section that the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules of
1995 were framed. According to Rule 7(1)110, investigation of an
offence committed under The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 cannot be investigated by an officer
not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP). Various
High Courts have vitiated the trail based on the above rule and have
improperly set aside the order of conviction.111
The Andhra Pradesh High Court, in D. Ramlinga Reddy v. State
of AP,112 took the position that provisions of Rule 7 are mandatory and
held that investigation under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989 has to be carried out by only
an officer not below the rank of DSP. An investigation carried out and
charge sheet filed by an incompetent officer is more than likely to be
quashed. Similarly, the Madras High Court in M. Kathiresam v. State
of Tamil Nadu113 held that investigation conducted by an officer other
than a DSP is improper and bad in law and proceedings based on
110 Rule 7, The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Rules,1955 runs as under: An offence committed under the act shall be
investigation by policed officer not below the rank of a deputy superintendent of
police. The investigating officer shall be appointed by the state government/
director general of police/superintendent of police after taking into account his
past experience, sense of ability and justice to perceive the implication of the
case and investigate it along with right line within the shortest possible time.
111 Ministry of social justice and Empowerment, Report on the convention rate was
2% in cases of scheduled castes and scheduled Tribes, 2002
112 1999 CriLJ 2918.
113 1999 CriLJ 265.
242
such an investigation are required to be quashed. The courts without
taking into consideration the inadequacies of the State, have been
punishing Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for the same. Shri
Pravin Rashtrapal, Member of Parliament rightly pointed out that
there are insufficient officers at that level.114 His statement is
supported by the Annul Report of 2005-2006 of Ministry of Home
Affairs. Of the total posts sanctioned by the government under Indian
Police Service (IPS) more than 15 percent of the posts are vacant. This
basically means that there is one IPS officer for 77,000 Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
5.24 FAILURE OF ATROCITIES ACT

The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act 1989 was enacted by the parliament of India, in order
to prevent atrocities against scheduled castes and scheduled tribes,
but the act failed to provide the protection to scheduled castes and
scheduled tribes due to some reasons:-
Special Court Justice Ramaswamy obsversed in case of State of
Karnataka v. Ingale,115 that more than seventy-five precent of the
cases brought under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, are acquitted at all levels.
The situation has not improved much since 1992 according to figures
given by 2002 annual report116 dealing with scheduled castes and
scheduled tribes act of the total cases filed in 2002 only 21.72% were
disposed of and of those, a mere 2.31% ended in conviction. The
number of acquittals is more than the number of convictions.117
The framer of Act, however, failed to give any powers to special
courts for the admission of complaints. This is evident from the
provision relating to setting up of special courts which gives a false
114 Lok Sahba Debates,http://164.100.24.24.208/Is/Isdeb/Is13 visited on 31st March 2010.

115 (1992) 3 SCR 284.
116 Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Annul Report on Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)Act,1989, 12(2002).
117 http://www.censusindia.gov.in 2001census visited on 23rd July 2010.
243
impression that a case of atrocity can be directly filed with special
courts. Various State Governments have notified the special courts, in
accordance with the provision of the act, but this court can not take
cognizance of any complaint directly. The Supreme Court, in the case
of Gangula v. State of A.P118, clarified that a special court can take
cognizance of offence only when a case is committed to it by a
magistrate in accordance with provisions of section 193 of criminal
procedure code. This means that a charge sheet cannot be directly
filed before a special court. When a session court is constituted as a
special court, it cannot take cognizance of an offence without such a
case being committed to it by magistrate unless it is expressly
provided so in the Act. Neither in Cr..P.C nor in the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes Act there is any provision which grants the
power to special court to take cognizance of the offences as an
original jurisdiction without the case being committed to it by a
magistrate. Hence it is mandatory to go through the course
established under the Cr.P.C.
The legal regime is fraught with contradictions. While the legal
text is explicit in seeking remedies, the implementation of the text
appears to evade actual performance. Law and legal processes are not
self executing. They depend on the administrative structure and the
judiciary with the anticipation that the social attitudes are driven by
notion of equity, social justice and fair play. However, in the
implementation of laws protecting the weak, the oppressed and
socially disadvantaged have persisted over the years and the system
has failed to provide for self-correction. Victim of atrocities suffer not
only bodily but also mental pain coupled with a feeling of insecurity
and social avoidance which is not present for the victims of other
crimes. If the judges delegated to protect them show indifference, it
further aggravates their already vulnerable position. According to Rule
118 AIR 2000 SC 740.
244
7(1)119, investigation of an offence committed under The Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989
cannot be investigated by an officer not below the rank of Deputy
Superintendent of Police (DSP). Various High Courts have vitiated the
trail based on the above rule and have improperly set aside the order
of conviction.120
The Andhra Pradesh High Court, in D. Ramlinga Reddy v. State
of AP,121 took the position that provisions of Rule 7 are mandatory and
held that investigation under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 has to be carried out by only
an officer not below the rank of DSP. An investigation carried out and
charge sheet filed by an incompetent officer is more than likely to be
quashed. Similarly, the Madras High Court in M. Kathiresam v. State
of Tamil Nadu122 held that investigation conducted by an officer other
than a DSP is improper and bad in law and proceedings based on
such an investigation are required to be quashed. The courts without
taking into consideration the inadequacies of the State, have been
punishing Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for the same. Shri
Pravin Rashtrapal, Member of Parliament rightly pointed out that
there are insufficient officers at that level.123 His statement is
supported by the Annul Report of 2005-2006 of Ministry of Home
Affairs. Of the total posts sanctioned by the government under Indian
Police Service (IPS) more than 15 percent of the posts are vacant. This
basically means that there is one IPS officer for 77,000 Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes.33
It is the constitutional obligation of the State to protect the
interest of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes from social
119 Supra note 110.

120 Ministry of social justice and Empowerment, Report on the convention rate was
2% in cases of scheduled castes and scheduled Tribes,2002
121 1999 CriLJ 2918.
122 1999 CriLJ; Mansingh Babura Garud v. State of Maharashtra; 2011 CriLJ (NOC)
444 (Bom).
123 Lok Sahba Debates,http://164.100.24.24.208/Is/Isdeb/Is13 visited on 31st
March 2010.
245
injustice and atrocities. Despite various measures to improve the
socio-economic conditions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes, they are still vulnerable. They are subjected to various
offences, indignities, humiliation and harassment. It has been shown
that they are often deprived of their life. Serious crimes are committed
against them for various historical, social and economic reasons. The
Constitution of India provides facilities and privileges for the people
belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It was done with
a view to ensure social progress to those Sections who were kept
under conditions of backwardness in all sphere of life.
It is abundantly clear that many of legislations had been passed
by the Parliament for protection of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes and prevention of atrocities committed against them. However,
it must be kept in view that legislations are not a solution to a social
problem including atrocities which are committed against
untouchables. If the current legislation for the prevention of the
atrocity is made more deterrent, it will certainly go a long way in the
prevention of atrocities. Nevertheless the real solution to the problem
lies in the sensitization of the people. People must be sensitized
through education that all the people including Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes are the children of the God and therefore any hatred
and atrocity towards them would be hatred to the God and is a sin.
246

14 Chapter 5

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

14 Chapter 5

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

CHAPTER - V

APPRAISAL OF SCHEDULED CASTES AND

It is the constitutional duty of the state to protect the interest of

1 http://wikipedia,org/wiki.Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

5.2 SHORT TITLE, EXTENT AND COMMENCEMENT

2 Article 370, The Constitution of India.

6 Section 2(c), Ibid.

Atrocities) Act 1989.

5.3 PUNISHMENTS FOR OFFENCES OF ATROCITIES

13 Section 2(f), Ibid.

18 Section 3(1)(iv), Ibid.

26 Section 3(1)(xii), Ibid.

30 Section 3(2)(i), Ibid.

5.3.1 Use of Force Against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

34 Section 3(2)(v), Ibid.

37 2001(3) RCR (Cri.), Gara Yesobu v. State of A.P. 2005(1) RCR1000(A.P).

5.3.2 Wrongful Dispossession

39 Kaliya Perumal v. State, 1998 CriLJ 1467 (Mad).

5.3.3 Begar or Bonded Labour

41Section 3(1)(v), The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Vasudeva v. S.D. Mittal, AIR 1962 Bom 53.

5.3.4 Force or Intimidation to Vote or Not to Vote

46 Section 3(1)(vii), The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

motion, change of motion, or cessation of motion to that other, or if he causes to

5.3.5 Filing of False, Malicious or Vexatious Suit

5.3.6 Causing Insult or Humiliation in Public Place

48 Section 3(1)(vii), The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

50 2002 CriLJ 3441; Sunderlal v. State of M.P., 2012 CriLJ (NOC)391(MP).

5.3.7 Assault with Intent to Outraging Modesty of Women

60 Vidyadharan v. State of Kerala, 2004 CriLJ 605 (SC).

64 2010 CriLJ (NOC)104 (BOM).

5.3.8 Sexual Exploitation

65 Ashok Kumar Laha v. Mahendra Prasad, 1995 CrLJ 1560 Orissa.

5.3.9 Corruption or Fouling the Water

70 Thama Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 1996 CriLJ 502 (Raj.).

5.3.10 Denial of Customary Right of Passage

71Section 3(1)(vii), The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

5.3.11 False or Fabricates Evidence

72 Section 3(1)(vii), The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Whoever, being legally bound by an oath or by an express provision of law to state

75 2008 CriLJ 483.

5.4 PUNISHMENT FOR NEGLECT OF DUTIES

Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or

5.5 ENHANCE PUNISHMENT FOR SUBSEQUENT CONVICTION

80 Alka A. Misra v. J.P. Shoke, 2003 CriLJ 1333 (Bom).

5.7 FORFEITURE OF PROPERTY OF CERTAIN PERSONS

84Section 6, The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

5.9 CONFERMENT OF POWERS

5.10 REMOVAL OF PERSON LIKELY TO COMMIT OFFENCE

5.12 TAKING MEASUREMENTS AND PHOTOGRAPHS, ETC., OF

5.13 PENALTY FOR NON-COMPLIANCE OF ORDER MADE UNDER

5.14 SPECIAL COURT

90 Section 12, Ibid.

92 Section 14, Ibid.

95 The Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Annual Report on The

98 Meera Bai v. Bhujbal, 1995 CriLJ 2376 (MP).

5.15 SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

5.16 POWER OF STATE GOVERNMENT TO IMPOSE COLLECTIVE

100 State v. Mahalingu, 2001 CriLJ 237 (Kant).

5.18 ANTICIPATORY BAIL

102 Section 17, Ibid.

103 1996(1) RCR453.