Dismissed

State of Chhattisgarh v. Pushp Kumar Sahu @ Manmohan Sahu @ Golu

Chhattisgarh HC18 Sept 2019CRMP/783/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking leave to appeal against the acquittal of an accused for an offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, 1989, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the specific ground of caste discrimination required for that charge.

What did the court decide?

Leave to appeal against acquittal under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, 1989 is dismissed;

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Pushp Kumar Sahu @ Manmohan… — Caste Atrocities | Chhattisgarh HC (2019)

CRMP No. 783 of 2018

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶5

CRMP No. 783 of 2018

¶6

State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

---- Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Pushp Kumar Sahu @ Manmohan Sahu @ Golu S/o. Ramnath Sahu, Aged About 28 Years Temporary Address- House Of Prakash Sarkanda, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Permanent Address Village- Padampur, Police Station Jarhagaon, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

---- Respondent

¶11

For Applicant

¶12

:- Shri Vikash Shrivastava, PL

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra & Hon'ble Shri Gautam Chourdiya, JJ.

¶14

Order On Board

¶15

¶16

Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.

¶17

18/09/2019

¶18

On due consideration delay of 21 days in filing of Cr.M.P. is

¶19

condoned. Accordingly, I.A. No.1 of 2018 which is an application for condonation of delay occurred in filing of the Cr.M.P. is allowed.

¶20

¶21

CRMP No. 783 of 2018

¶22

The trial Court has acquitted the accused of the charges under Section 3(1) (w-i) (w-ii) and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short “the Act,1989”)

¶23

The trial Court has convicted the accused for committing offence under Sections 363, 366, and 376(2) of I.P.C. and under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. For the convicted offence, the accused has been sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years for each of the offence with fine of Rs.5000/- for each of the offence, in default to undergo additional RI for 1 month for each of the offence. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently. The default sentence has been directed to run one after another.

¶24

The accused, a married person, fell in love with the prosecutrix and on his proposal, the prosecutrix accepted the offer and both of them eloped and stayed together after performing marriage at a local temple. They lived as husband and wife for a period of about 20 months. Neither in her case diary statement nor in her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C nor in the deposition, prosecutrix would allege that accused committed the offence to humiliate her on the ground that she belongs to Schedule Caste Community.

¶25

The offence had taken place on 10.03.2015. On the said date the pre-amended provision of Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, 1989

¶26

¶27

CRMP No. 783 of 2018

¶28

was operative under which it was necessary that the offence should be committed “on the ground” that the victim belongs to SC or ST community. The amendment doing away with the necessity of committing the offence “on the ground” by replacing it with the words Knowing was introduced on 26.1.2016. Thus, as on date of offence it was necessary for the prosecution to prove that the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, 1989 was committed on the ground that the victim belongs to SC or ST community.

¶29

There being lack of such ingredients in the prosecution case, the trial Court has rightly held that offence under Section 3(2)(v) of Act, 1989 is not proved against accused.

¶30

Accordingly, the Cr.M.P. seeking leave to appeal against acquittal under Section 3(2)(v) deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.

¶31

Nothing observed in this order would effect the Criminal Appeal preferred by the accused challenging the conviction under Section 363, 366, and 376(2) of I.P.C. and under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

¶32

SD/SD/( Prashant Kumar Mishra ) ( Gautam Chourdiya ) Judge Judge

¶33

Ayushi

State of Chhattisgarh v. Pushp Kumar Sahu @ Manmohan Sahu @ Golu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Chhattisgarh v. Pushp Kumar Sahu @ Manmohan Sahu @ Golu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abhishek Kumar Patel Vs Deepak Kumar Kashyap

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Kallu @ Jagnesh Patel

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Santosh Sonkar

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Md. Imtiyaz Khan @ Saddam

Bund Kunwar (Complainant ) Vs Ramkhilawan Tiwari

Vivek Ranjan Tiwari Vs State of Chhattisgarh