Court finds injured witness and medical evidence reliable, but rules that caste-based intent and minimum ten-year punishment were not proved under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.
The Allahabad High Court has partly allowed the appeal of Sunil alias Punjabi, convicted in a 2015 Bulandshahr firing case, upholding his conviction under Sections 307 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code while setting aside his conviction under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The case arose from a complaint filed by Munna, who alleged that on March 5, 2015, the appellant entered the house of his brother Sundar Lal, abused him in the name of caste, and fired a gunshot at him after being annoyed that Sundar Lal had returned home for lunch while working in his sugarcane field. The injured man, along with the complainant and another eyewitness, supported the prosecution version. The trial court had convicted the accused and sentenced him to five years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 452 IPC, life imprisonment under Section 307 IPC, and life imprisonment under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.
Before the High Court, the defence argued that the prosecution story was inconsistent, that the weapon was not recovered, that the clothes were not sent for forensic examination, and that the injuries were not declared dangerous to life. It was also argued that the SC/ST Act charge was not made out because the alleged abuse was not caste-specific and there was no proof that the accused knew the victim’s caste.
The High Court rejected the challenge to the IPC convictions. It held that the injured witness’s testimony remained unimpeached despite lengthy cross-examination and was corroborated by the complainant, another eyewitness, and medical evidence. The court noted that the doctor found gunshot wounds on the victim’s hand and chest, and that the medical evidence fully supported the ocular version. It also observed that an injury need not be grievous or on a vital part to attract Section 307 IPC; the presence of “hurt” caused by the act with intention or knowledge is enough.
On the issue of defective investigation, the court held that non-recovery of the weapon and non-seizure or forensic examination of clothes were not enough, by themselves, to discard otherwise credible evidence. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the court reiterated that faulty investigation cannot benefit the accused when the prosecution case is otherwise proved by trustworthy witness and medical evidence.
Bottom Line :
Conviction under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, requires proof that the offence was committed on the ground of the victim's caste.
However, the court found the conviction under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act unsustainable. It held that mere proof that the victim belonged to a Scheduled Caste and that an IPC offence was committed is not enough. The prosecution must also prove that the offence was committed knowing the victim’s caste and on that ground, and that the underlying
Sunil @ Panjabi v. State of U.P., (All)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2985883
