The Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified that allegations of caste-based animus under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 cannot be manufactured after the fact. The judgment underscores that the essential ingredient of knowledge regarding the victim’s caste must exist at the time of the offence, not be introduced later through improvised statements.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The incident occurred on 12 April 2016 at Khaltaka Police Chauki, Khargone, when a physical altercation broke out in a crowded public space. Five individuals, including three members of the Bhilala Scheduled Tribe - Antim, Praveen, and Ravindra - sustained minor injuries. The accused, all non-SC/ST individuals, were charged under Sections 147, 323, 149, 294, and 506 of the IPC, along with Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act. The core contention is that the caste-based element was absent at the time of the incident and was inserted later to invoke the stringent provisions of the SC/ST Act.
Procedural History
- 12 April 2016: FIR registered under IPC provisions only; no mention of caste or SC/ST status of victims.
- 13 April 2016: Statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded from all witnesses; none referenced caste-based language or motive.
- 10 May 2016: Nearly a month after the incident, one victim, Antim, filed an improvised statement alleging caste-based abuse and identifying the accused’s intent as caste-driven.
- 14 October 2016: Special Judge framed charges under Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act based on the belated assertion.
- 2019: Criminal appeal filed before the High Court challenging the framing of charges.
Relief Sought
The appellants sought quashing of charges under Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act, arguing that the caste-based allegation was a post-facto fabrication to invoke a more severe statute, and that the initial FIR and witness statements conclusively negated any such intent.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 can be invoked when the allegation of caste-based knowledge or animus emerges only after the incident, through an improvised statement, and is absent from the original FIR and early witness statements.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Counsel argued that the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredient of knowledge under Section 3(2)(va) at the time of the offence. The absence of any caste reference in the FIR and in statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. within 24 hours of the incident demonstrated that the caste element was not part of the original dispute. The belated statement of Antim on 10 May 2016, after nearly a month, was an attempt to artificially convert a trivial brawl into a caste-based atrocity. Reliance was placed on State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramdas and Suresh v. State of Maharashtra, which held that the SC/ST Act cannot be misused as a tool for revenge or to gain procedural advantage.
For the Respondent
The State and victim advocates contended that the final investigation report and the victim’s subsequent statement established the requisite knowledge. They argued that the delay in disclosure was due to fear or social stigma, and that the victim’s later assertion was credible and corroborated by the community context. They further cited K. Srinivas v. State of Telangana to argue that the Act must be interpreted liberally to protect vulnerable communities.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a rigorous textual and contextual analysis of Section 3(2)(va), which requires the accused to commit the offence "knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe." The Court emphasized that knowledge must be contemporaneous with the act, not retroactively constructed. The judgment noted that the burden of proving knowledge lies on the prosecution and cannot be satisfied by a statement made weeks after the incident, especially when earlier statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were entirely silent.
"The SC/ST Act is not a weapon of convenience to be invoked after the event to enhance punishment; its application must be rooted in the reality of the incident as it unfolded."
The Court also examined Section 8(c) of the Act, which permits a presumption of knowledge if the accused and victim belong to different communities and reside in proximity. However, the Court held that this presumption is rebuttable and cannot override the absence of any contemporaneous indication of caste-based intent. The Court distinguished this case from those where caste slurs were uttered during the incident or where the community identity was publicly known and targeted. Here, the record showed no such evidence at the time of the act.
The Court further observed that allowing charges based on post-facto improvisation would open the floodgates to misuse of the Act, undermining its legitimate purpose and violating the principle of fair trial under Article 21.
The Verdict
The appeal was allowed. The High Court quashed the charges framed under Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Court held that knowledge of the victim’s caste must be established at the time of the offence, and cannot be inferred from belated, improvised statements. The remaining IPC charges were allowed to proceed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Caste-Based Allegations Must Be Contemporaneous
- Practitioners must scrutinize the original FIR and early witness statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. for any mention of caste.
- If caste is absent in initial records, any later assertion is legally insufficient to invoke Section 3(2)(va).
- Prosecution must establish contemporaneous knowledge through direct evidence, not retrospective reconstruction.
Post-Facto Improvisation Undermines Credibility
- Courts will treat delayed caste allegations with extreme skepticism, especially when recorded after the accused are named.
- Defence counsel may file applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash charges where caste motive appears manufactured.
- Investigating officers must record caste-related statements immediately during initial questioning.
Section 8(c) Presumption Is Rebuttable
- The presumption under Section 8(c) does not shift the burden of proof to the accused.
- It is a procedural aid, not a substitute for substantive evidence of intent.
- Defence must highlight inconsistencies between initial and later statements to rebut the presumption.
