Ramesh vs State of U.P.

Shiv Charan and Vijay Kumar Verma, JJ.—Learned A.G.A. has filed objection, which be taken on record.

Heard Sri V. S. Parmar, learned Counsel for the Appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State on the prayer of bail of the Appellant Ramesh, who has been convicted and sentenced by Sri S. K. Singh, the then Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Hamirpur in S.T. No. Spl. Case No. 39 of 2002 (State v. Ramesh S.T. No. Spl. Case No. 39 of 2002), under Sections 307, 504 and 506, I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of S.C./S.T. Act, P. S. Rath, District Hamirpur and perused the record and relevant documents.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant argued that learned Sessions Judge, convicted the Appellant for the offence u/s 307, I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years and also imposed fine with default stipulation and separately convicted him for the offence u/s 3(2)(v) S.C./ S.T. Act simplicitor and sentenced him to life imprisonment. Learned Counsel for the Appellant also contended that there is no material on record to show that the injury sustained by the injured was fatal. He was advised for X-ray, but no X-ray report was produced in the Court to show that injury caused to the injured was fatal. It is further argued that Sessions Judge was not justified in convicting the Appellant for the offence under S.C./S.T. Act and awarding separate punishment for life imprisonment. It is also stated that the Appellant was on bail during trial and has not misused the bail.

Learned A.G.A., opposed the bail.

We have considered all the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. Without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, we are of the opinion that it is a fit case for bail.

Let the Appellant Ramesh be released on bail in the above case during pendency of appeal on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial court concerned and subject to deposit of 50% of fine within one month from today, but prior to the release on bail.

On depositing 50% fine, the remaining 50% amount of fine shall remain stayed till disposal of appeal.

Before parting with this order, we would like to point out that the learned court below has convicted and sentenced the Appellant to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000 u/s 3(2)(v) of S.C./S.T. Act simplicitor. He has also convicted the Appellant separately u/s 307, I.P.C. and sentenced him as mentioned herein-above. This method of convicting and sentencing the Appellant is not in accordance with law. Section 3(2)(v) of S.C./S.T. Act does not constitute any substantive offence and hence, conviction and sentence of the Appellant u/s 3(2)(v) of S.C./S.T. Act, simplicitor is wholly illegal. Section 3(2)(v) of S.C./S.T. Act provides as under:

3 (2). Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe:

(i) ......

(ii) ....

(iii) ...

(iv) ....

(v) 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.

As would appear from the language used by the Legislature in Section 3(2)(v) of S.C./S.T. Act, it is clear that this section does not constitute any substantive offence and if any person not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe commits any offence under the Indian Penal Code 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 Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member, then with the aid of Section 3(2)(v) of S.C./ S.T. Act enhanced punishment of life imprisonment would be awarded in such case but conviction and sentence u/s 3(2)(v) of S.C./S.T. Act simplicitor is not permissible under law and in such cases the accused will be convicted for the offence under Indian Penal Code read with Section 3(2)(v) of S.C./S.T. Act and sentence of imprisonment for life and fine will be awarded. Therefore, the Appellant could not be convicted and sentenced u/s 3(2)(v) of S.C./S.T. Act simplicitor in present case.

Mistake which has been committed by the learned Sessions Judge in present case in convicting and sentencing the Appellant u/s 3(2)(v) simplicitor, has been noticed by us in many other cases also.

Registrar General is directed to send a copy of this order to Sri S. K. Singh, the then Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Hamirpur for his further guidance.