[ad_1]
Patna High Court – Orders
Dharmendra Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 4 August, 2025
Author: Nawneet Kumar Pandey
Bench: Nawneet Kumar Pandey
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3873 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-133 Year-2019 Thana- DUMRA District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
1. DHARMENDRA KUMAR Son of Mr. Shivji Sahni Resident of Village-
Lagma, P.S.- Dumra, District- Sitamarhi
2. GAJENDRA KUMAR Son of Mr. Shivji Sahni Resident of Village- Lagma,
P.S.- Dumra, District- Sitamarhi
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Bihar
2. Anil Ram Son of Kailash Ram Resident of Village- Lagma, P.S.- Dumra,
District- Sitamarhi
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ajay Kr Thakur, Adv.
Ms. Vaishnavi Singh, Adv.
Mr. Ritwaj Raman, Adv.
For the State(Spl. PP) : Mr.Binay Krishna
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR
PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
13 04-08-2025
Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well
as the learned Special PP for the State.
2. This appeal has been preferred against the order
dated 27.07.2022 passed by learned 1st Additional District and
Sessions Judge cum Special Judge SC/ST (POA) Act, Sitamarhi
in Dumra P.S.Case No.133 of 2019 dated 08.04.2019 under
section 302/34 of the Indian Penal code in which sections 3(2)
(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act was added by which the learned
Special Judge has been pleased to take cognizance against the
appellants under sections 302/34 of the Indian penal Code and
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3873 of 2022(13) dt.04-08-2025
2/6
section 3(2)(v) of the The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short ‘the SC/ST
Act’).
3. According to the allegation, when the informant
awoke in the morning, he heard the voice of his mother, who
was shouting. The informant found his sister, Kanchan Kumari,
aged 18 years, lying in pool of blood near the toilet. Her throat
was found slit. She was dead. The informant expressed
suspicion that the appellants Dharmendra Kumar and Gajendra
Kumar had committed murder of his sister by slitting her throat.
The reason behind the occurrence is said to be some old dispute
that took place at the time of Holi, when some altercation had
taken place between both the parties. The informant was of firm
belief that the appellants committed murder of the deceased by
slitting her throat.
4. Assailing the impugned order dated 27-07-2022,
whereby the cognizance was taken against the appellants under
Section 302/34 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act,
learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the
provisions of the SC/ST Act are not attracted in the present case.
It has further been submitted that even if the occurrence is
assumed to be true, though denied, it has not taken place on the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3873 of 2022(13) dt.04-08-2025
3/6
ground that the victim (the deceased) was belonging to the
Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe. Merely because a person
commits any offence punishable under the provisions of IPC or
any other penal enactment, the provisions of SC/ST Act do not
attract ipso facto merely because the member against whom the
offence was committed, belonged to Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Tribe. In support of his submission, the learned
counsel has also relied upon the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme
Court in case of Khuman Singh vs. State of M.P. reported in
(2020) 18 Supreme Court Cases 763.
5. It has also been submitted that subsequent to taking
of the cognizance, charges have also been framed in exactly
similar provisions in which cognizance was taken.
6. By filing supplementary affidavit, the order
framing the charges has also been challenged on the same
ground.
7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Khuman Singh vs. State of M.P. (supra) have been pleased to
hold that being a member of Scheduled Caste, if is not the
ground for the alleged incident, the provisions of 3(2)(v) of the
SC/ST Act are not attracted. The relevant provisions (paragraph
nos. 11 to 14) of that judgment are being extracted
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3873 of 2022(13) dt.04-08-2025
4/6
hereinbelow:-
“11. The next question falling for
consideration is whether the conviction under
Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act can
be sustained? The deceased belongs to “Khangar”
caste and in a wordy altercation, the appellant-
accused is said to have called the deceased by his
caste name “Khangar” and attacked him with an
axe. Calling of the deceased by his caste name is
admittedly in the field when there was a sudden
quarrel regarding grazing of the buffaloes.
12. From the evidence and other
materials on record, there is nothing to suggest
that the offence was committed by the appellant
only because the deceased belonged to a Scheduled
Caste. Both the trial court and the High Court
recorded the finding that the appellant-accused
scolded the deceased Veer Singh that he belongs to
“Khangar” caste and how he could drive away the
cattle of the person belonging to “Thakur” caste
and therefore, the appellant-accused has
committed the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Section 3 of the said
Act deals with the punishments for offences of
atrocities committed under the Scheduled Castes
and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act. 1989. Section 3(2)(v) of the Act reads as
under:
“3. Punishments for offences of
atrocities.(1)
(2) Whoever, not being a member of a
Scheduled Caste or a Schedule Tribe,-
(v) commits any offence under the Penal
Code, 45 of 1860 punishable with imprisonment for
a term of ten years or more against a person or
property knowing that such person is a member of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3873 of 2022(13) dt.04-08-2025
5/6a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such
property belongs to such member, shall be
punishable with imprisonment for life and with
fine.”
The object of Section 3(2)(v) of the Act
is to provide for enhanced punishment with regard
to the offences under the Penal Code punishable
with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more
against a person or property knowing that the
victim is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe.
13. In Dinesh v. State of Rajasthan, the
Supreme Court held as under: (SCC p. 777. para
15)
“15. Sine qua non for application of
Section 3(2)(v) is that an offence must have been
committed against a person on the ground that
such person is a member of the Scheduled Castes
or the Scheduled Tribes. In the instant case no
evidence has been led to establish this requirement.
It is not the case of the prosecution that the rape
was committed on the victim since she was a
member of Scheduled Caste. In the absence of
evidence to that effect. Section 3(2)(v) has no
application. Had Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities
Act been applicable then by operation of law, the
sentence would have been imprisonment for life
and fine.
14. As held by the Supreme Court, the
offence must be such so as to attract the offence
under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act. The offence must
have been committed against the person ground
that such person is a member of Scheduled Caste
and Scheduled Tribe. In the present case, the fact
that the deceased was belonging to “Khangar”-
Scheduled Caste is not disputed. There is no
evidence to show that the offence was committed
only on the ground that the victim was a member of
the Scheduled Caste and therefore. the conviction
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3873 of 2022(13) dt.04-08-2025
6/6
of the appellant-accused under Section 3(2)(v) of
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities not sustainable.”
8. From bare perusal of the FIR, it appears that the
cause of incident is not the ground that the victim (deceased)
was belonging to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. As
such, no offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST
Act attracts in the present case.
9. Considering the aforementioned facts and
circumstances, in my view, the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of
the SC/ST Act is not attracted in the present case. Accordingly,
the cognizance taken as well as the charge framed under Section
3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act by the learned 1st Additional District
and Sessions Judge cum Special Judge SC/ST (POA) Act,
Sitamarhi in connection with Dumra P.S.Case No.133 of 2019
are hereby quashed.
10. So far as the cognizance and charge under Section
302/34 of the IPC are concerned, there shall be no interference.
11. With these observations, this appeal is disposed of.
(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J)
kundan/-
U T
[ad_2]
Source link