the same police station, thus, they knew the caste of each other and as per Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, the enhanced punishment may be granted only if a person commits an offence under Indian Penal Code punishable with imprisonment for a term of 10 years or more against a person knowing that such person is a member of SC/ST community. As per interpretation of the Apex Court, in the judgement Khuman Singh (supra), the offence under section 3(2) (v) of SC/ST Act can be said to be made out only when the offence under sections of Indian Penal Code is committed by the accused against a person on the ground of such person being a member of SC/ST community. In the present case, the offence is said to have been committed because of the interruption made by the alleged victim SSI Ram Autar Singh in hot discussion which took place between the appellant and Kotwal, the person granting leave, to the appellant. Thus, it cannot be said that the victim was fired at by the appellant on the basis of his being a member of SC/ST community. So it is found that the prayer to discharge the appellant of the charge under section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act rejected by the trial court is against the mandate of the Apex Court as discussed above.
