ORDER
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to declare the inaction on the part of the 3rd respondent, the District Collector, Chittoor, in providing the benefits to her in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 3 Social Welfare (HI) Department dated 16.1.1996, and Rule 12(4), Annexure-I Sl.No. 20 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’) as erroneous, arbitrary and contrary to law. A consequential direction against the 3rd respondent is sought for providing employment to the petitioner or to pay her pension at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month, apart from extending education facility to the children of the petitioner.
2. The basis for the petitioner in claiming the relief is thus: The petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste Community. Her husband by name Reddanna was said to have been murdered on 2.10.2002 by two persons by name Shaik Qader Valli and P. Anand, at Tirupathi. According to the petitioner, the murder of her husband attracts the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and thereby she is entitled to the benefits, provided under Rule 12 read with Item No. 21 of the annexure. It is her case that the accused in the said offence are being tried for the offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of the Act. On a representation made by the petitioner, the 3rd respondent extended the benefit of Rs. 1,50,000/- through his proceedings dated 11.2.2003. The petitioner claims that in addition to the same, she is entitled to be provided an employment and her children are to be provided educational facility. She submitted a representation dated 13.4.2003 to the 3rd respondent for extension of other benefits as provided under the Rules.
3. The writ petition came up for admission on 17.6.2003. Inasmuch as almost all the facts are borne out by record and what is involved is only an interpretation of the relevant provisions, the matter was adjourned to enable the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare to get ready. The learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare advanced extensive arguments with reference to the relevant provisions.
4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner and her husband belong to Scheduled Caste Community. The husband of the petitioner was murdered on 2.10.2002. Crime No. 275 of 2002 was registered by the Station House Officer, Aliperi Police Station, Tirupathi. After investigation, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Tirupathi has filed the final report. The motive for the accused to commit the murder of the husband of the petitioner as is evident from the final report is that the husband of the petitioner had developed extra marital relationship with the wife of accused No. 1 and that accused No. 1 was driven out from the house. Facing humiliation, Accused No. 1 had shifted from the village and was doing labour work and also attending to a telephone booth at Tirupathi. Subsequently, he came in contact with accused No. 2 and has revealed his plight to him. Both of them are said to have conspired to do away with the life of the husband of the petitioner and alleged to have committed the murder on 2.10.2002.
5. The Parliament had enacted the Act in the year 1989 providing for severe punishments to those who commit atrocities on the persons belonging to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Communities. The Act contemplates preventive as well as punitive measures. Rules were also framed for extension of benefits to the victims of atrocities. Annexure to the Rules provides for the kind of benefits that are required to be extended to the various categories of the victims.
6. In cases where the offences punishable under the provisions of the I.P.C. with imprisonment for a term often years or more are committed against the persons belonging to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Communities, the punishment is required to be imprisonment for life and fine. Section 3(2)(v) of the Act reads as under:
“Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe commits any offence under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 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 punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine”.
7. A close reading of the aforesaid provision would make one thing clear that it is only when such an offence is said to be committed ‘on the ground that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe’. To put it in other words, if an offence is committed against a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe, not on the ground that he belongs to that community but on certain other grounds or for certain other reasons, Section 3 (2) (v) does not get attracted.
8. A perusal of the final report filed in Crime No. 275 of 2002 discloses that the prosecution did not allege that the husband of the petitioner was murdered only for the reason that he belongs to Scheduled Caste Community. The allegation therein is that Accused No. 1 felt humiliated on account of extra marital relationship, which the husband of the petitioner is alleged to have developed, with the wife of accused No. 1. That, however, is a matter for the Trial Court to decide.
9. So far as the benefits extendible to the victims of the atrocities under the Act are concerned, the Government of India framed Rules in the year 1995. Rule 12 thereof directs that the victims to be extended the benefits as provided in the Annexure-1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh had decided to extend all those benefits vide G.O. Ms. No. 3 Social Welfare, (H1) Department, dated 16.1.1996. Item Nos. 1 to 19 deal with various types of atrocities as defined under the relevant provisions of Clauses (i) to (xvi) Section 3 (1) of the Act. So far as the victims of the offences of murder and other severe offences are concerned, they are dealt with under Item Nos. 20 and 21 in the Annexure. They read as under:
20.
Murder/Death
At least Rs.1,00,000/- to each case.
(a)
Non earning member of a
family.
Payment of 75% after post-mortem and and 25% on conviction by
the lower Court.
(b)
Earning member of a family.
At least Rs.2,00,000/- to each case. Payment of
75% after post-mortem and 25% on conviction
by the lower Court.
21.
Victim of murder, death, massacre, rape, mass rape and gang
rape, permanent incapatitation and
dacocity
In addition to relief amounts paid under above items, relief may
be arranged within three months of date of atrocity as follows:
(i) Pension to each widow and/or other
dependents of deceased SC and ST Rs. 1,0007- per month or employment to one
member of the family of the deceased, or provision of agricultural land,
house, if necessary by outright purchase.
(ii) Full cost of the education and maintenance of the children
of the victims. Children may be admitted to Ashram Schools/Residential
Schools.
(iii) Provision of utensils, rice, wheat,
dhal, pulses etc., for a period of three months.
10. On an application submitted by the petitioner, the 3rd respondent issued proceedings dated 11.2.2003 extending the benefit of Rs. 1,50,000/- representing 75% of the relief as provided under Item No. 20 in terms of the Rules and G.O. Ms. No. 3 Social Welfare (H1) Department, dated 16.1.1996. It is the case of the petitioner that she is entitled for the benefits under Item No. 21 also. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the victim of murder or death of a family member is entitled for the benefits indicated against Item No. 21 in addition to those meant for Item No. 20.
11. The Parliament or the rule making authority cannot be understood to have intended to extend different kinds of benefits for the victims of same atrocity or crime. Item No. 20 provides for the benefits to be extended in the event of a murder of non-earning or earning member of the family. Obviously, the benefit is to the dependents of the deceased person. Item No. 20 takes care of the situation where an earning or non-earning member of the family of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe Community is murdered or is dead. Item No. 21 deals with the benefits to be extended to the victim of murder as well as some other heinous crimes. If the instance of murder or death alone are to be covered under Item No. 21, Item No. 20 becomes meaningless. Mention of heinous crime such as murder, massacre, rape, mass rape, gang rape, permanent incapacitation and dacoity in inclusive terms indicates that the gravamen of the atrocity covered under Item No. 21 is more than the murder alone. Providing a kind of benefit for the victims of murder and death under Item No. 20 clearly indicates that the benefit intended under Item No. 21 is for those where the family suffers the crime of murder, massacre, rape, dacoity etc. The petitioner does not claim that she is the victim of the other categories of atrocities apart from the murder of her husband. Hence, her claim cannot be accepted.
12. The learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare submits that the charge sheet/final report was very much before the 3rd respondent when he passed the orders dated 11.2.2003 and though there was nothing to indicate that the husband of the petitioner was killed only on the ground that he belongs to Scheduled Caste Community, still the benefit was extended. He sums up stating that when it is doubtful as to whether the petitioner was entitled for the benefit, which is already extended to her, the question of extending any further benefit does not arise.
13. Though this Court finds merit in the submission of the learned Government Pleader, this Court is not inclined to go into the correctness or otherwise of the order passed by the 3rd respondent since the same is not the subject-matter of this writ petition. This Court only observes that the 3rd respondent ought to have been careful in extending the relief and following the provisions in letter and spirit. Viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any ground to extend the relief claimed by the petitioner.
14. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.