High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Present:- Mr. J.P.Sharma vs Unknown on 3 March, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Present:- Mr. J.P.Sharma vs Unknown on 3 March, 2009


IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

-.-

Crl. Rev. No. 554 of 2009
Date of Decision:- 3.3.2009

Manoj & Anr Versus State of Haryana.

Present:- Mr. J.P.Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.

M.M.S.BEDI. (J) (Oral)

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that by framing

charge under Section 3(2)(v) the enhanced punishment of imprisonment for

life is warranted, but the offence under Section 3(2)(v) is not made out as

the alleged offence of carnal inter-course against the victim had not been

committed on the basis that he belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled

Tribe. He has placed reliance on Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman Vs.

State of Maharashtra, 2000(2) RCR (Crl) 116, in support of his

contention wherein deceased victim was member of Scheduled Caste. The

accused was convicted for offence under Section 304 Part -II as well as 3

(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989, but the conviction under Section 3(2)(v) was set aside

holding that for attracting provisions of Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, the sine-

qua-non is that the victim should be a person who belong to Scheduled

Caste or Scheduled Tribe and that the offence under the IPC is committed

on the basis that such a person belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled

Tribe. In the absence of ingredients said offence under Section 3(2)(v) of

the Act can be said to be made out. He has also placed reliance on Ashok

Bapurao Thorat Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr., 2008(1) R.C.R

(Crl) 491.

Crl. Rev. No. 554 of 2009 -2-

The entire report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C is not available

with this Court as such legality and propriety of the order of framing of

charge under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act cannot be appreciated in context to

the report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

This petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move

an application under Section 216 Cr.P.C for alteration of the charge by

raising all the pleas taken before this Court. In case any such application is

moved, the trial Court will consider the contentions and pass a speaking

order.

March 3, 2009                                                (M.M.S.Bedi)
tripti                                                         Judge