All you should know about Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 By D.Vishnu Prasad Reddy (Retd. District and Sessions Judge) Object and the preamble of the statute will give us better understanding of the provisions of the SC & ST (POA) Act (hereinafter referred as Act ) Despite various measures to improve the socioeconomic conditions of SCs & STs, they remain vulnerable. They are denied a number of civil rights; they are subjected to various offences, indignities, humiliations and harassment. They have, in several brutal incidents, been deprived of their life and property. Serious atrocities are committed against them for various historical, social and economic reasons. Preamble of the Act also states that the Act aims- To prevent the commission of offences of atrocities against the members of Scheduled Castes and Tribes, to provide for Special Courts for the trial of such offences and for the relief and rehabilitation of the victims of such offenses and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Article 17 of Constitution of India states to abolish 'untouchability' and to forbid all such practices. In 1989, the Government of India enacted the Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in order to prevent atrocities against SC/ ST s. The purpose of the Act is to prevent atrocities and help in social inclusion of Dalits into the society, Comprehensive Rules under the Act under sec 23 of the Act were notified in the year 1995, which inter-alia provides norms for relief and rehabilitation and amended from time to time.. Offenders, Victims and Offences- Any person who is not a member of a scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe and commits an offences listed in the Act against a member of a scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe is an offender. The victim should be a member of a scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe against whom any of the following offences are committed by the offender: Types of atrocities against SCs/STs (Section 3(1)i to xv and 3(2)i to vii.(modified as sec 3(1) a to zc and 3(2) I to vii by act no 1 of 2016) 1 P a g e
1. Forced to eat or drink an offensive or uneatable substance; 2. Caused annoyance, injury or insult by any excreta or waste matter being - ---------dumped in his premises or neighbourhood; 3. Paraded naked or with painted face or body; 4. Wrongfully deprived of cultivation of his land; 5. Wrongfully deprived of his rights over any land, premises or water; 6. Forced to do beggary or work as a bonded labourer; 7. Prevented from exercising his right to vote or according to his wishes; 8. Subjected to false legal proceedings; 9. Caused injury or annoyance by a public servant on the basis of false information given to him; 10. Deliberately insulted and humiliated in public view; 11. A woman who is sexually assaulted; 12. Deprived of his right to clean drinking water; 13. Deprived of his right of passage to a public place; 14. Forced to leave his house or village; 15. Falsely implicated in a criminal case which might result in his imprisonment or execution; 16. Intended harm or injury by burning a place of his dwelling or worship; 17. Wrongfully caused injury or subjected to any other offence by a public servant Section 3 (2) of the Act- It provides that whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled tribe: (i) gives or fabricates false evidence intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe to be convicted of an offence which is capital by the law for the time being in force shall be punished with imprisonment for life and with fine; and if an innocent member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe be convicted and executed in consequence of such false or fabricated evidence, the person who gives or fabricates such false evidence, shall be punished with death; (ii) gives or fabricates false evidence intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe to be convicted of an offence which is not capital but punishable with imprisonment for a term of seven years or upwards, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to seven years or upwards and with fine; (iii) commits mischief by fire or any explosive substance intending to cause or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause damage to any property belonging to a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to seven years and with fine; (iv) commits mischief by fire or any explosive substance intending to cause or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause destruction of any building which is ordinarily used as a place of worship or as a place for human dwelling or as a place 2 P a g e
for custody of the property by a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine; (v) 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 a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member, shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine; (vi) knowingly or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed under this Chapter, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false, shall be punishable with the punishment provided for that offence; or (vii) Being a public servant, commits any offence under this section, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to the punishment provided for that offence. New Offences added- The following new offences have been added to the list of atrocities vide Act No,1 of 2016, effective from 26-01-2016 Tonsuring of head, moustache, or similar acts which are derogatory to the dignity of members of SCs & STs Garlanding with Chappals Denying access to irrigation facilities or forest rights Dispose or carry human or animal carcasses, or to dig graves, using or permitting manual scavenging Dedicating a SC/ST woman as Devadasi Abusing in caste name, perpetrating witchcraft atrocities Imposing social or economic boycott Preventing SC/ST candidates from filing of nomination to contest elections Hurting a SC/ST woman by removing her garments Forcing a member of SC/ST to leave house, village or residence Defiling objects sacred to members SCs/STs Touching or using words, acts or gestures of a sexual nature against members of SCs/STs Protections provided u/s Section 3- Protections under the act can be broadly divided into protection from Social disabilities (denial of access to certain places and to use customary passage and to get water from any spring, reservoir or any other source). Personal atrocities (forceful drinking or eating of inedible or obnoxious substance, against stripping, outrage of modesty, sexual exploitation, injury or annoyance). Atrocities affecting properties (land, residential premises, existing properties). Malicious prosecution. 3 P a g e
Political disabilities. Economic exploitation. Knowing about virtual status about member of schedule caste and schedule tribe is very much essential for implementation of the Act Vide Articles 341 and 342 of THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, the President of India and Governors of the States had a mandate to compile a full listing of castes and tribes of weaker sections for extending the benefits specified under the Constitution of India. Therefore, the complete lists of Schedule castes and tribes were made via two orders: The Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 and The Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, respectively. (Lists are amended from time to time) Birth in the schedule caste or schedule tribe community is the criteria for deciding the status for the purpose of the act That a person born to Christian parents, who initially belonged to the Scheduled Caste, even after his reconversion cannot claim to be a Scheduled Caste is not accepted in K.P. Manu,Malabar Cements Ltd vs Chairman,Scrutiny Commt... on 26 February, 2015 by the apex court Bench of Dipak Misra, V. Gopala Gowda J. J In Ramesh bhai Dabhai Naika v. State of Gujarat, (2012) 3 SCC 400 it is held caste of offspring is essentially a question of fact - It cannot be determined in complete disregard to attending facts of the case - There may be a presumption that child takes the caste of the father - Such presumption is neither conclusive nor irrefutable by child of such marriage to lead evidence to show that he/she was brought up by the mother who belonged to SC/ST or was treated as member of the community to which the mother belonged If a SC girl marries a forward caste male the lady does not lose her caste as it is something related to birth and thus it cannot be changed by virtue of marriage as observed in Rajendra Shrivastava vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2010(112) BLR 762- The law is that, unless otherwise proved, the children will take the caste status of the father. However, this position has subsequently been clarified by the Apex Court that the above principle is not an inflexible one and that on evidence it can be established that the caste of the mother is the caste of the child provided the child has been accepted by that community and is brought up and living according to the tenets of that community. Therefore, the children would naturally gain the caste of a father. but because the mother is not losing her caste then if the children wants to enjoy the benefits of reservation then in such a case a special procedure have to be followed and they must prove that they were brought up according to to tenets of their mother s caste. 4 P a g e
The Statute laid stress on the intention of the accused in committing such offence under ST & SC (POA) ACT 1989. Therefore, I am of the view that mere knowledge that the victim belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community is not sufficient to constitute an offence under Section 3 (2)(v) of the Act. On the other hand, such knowledge should necessarily be coupled with intention to commit such an offence, in order to belittle the person as he/she belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community. In the case, reported as Mekala Rajireddy and Ors. vs State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep. By... on 11 December, 2001Equivalent citations: 2002 (1) ALD Cri 477, 2002 CriLJ 3407 it is observed, Admittedly, A-2 and A-7 belong to S.C. community. Apart from that, the remand report reveals that A-3 and A-4 also belongs to S.C. community. In such circumstances, it is difficult to believe that all the accused had committed the offence with the knowledge that P.W.1 belongs to S.C. community, more particularly with an intention to commit such offence against her, since she belongs to S.C. community. In other words, the real intention of the accused was to commit the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. only and in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, it is difficult to draw an inference that the accused had intention to commit the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. against P.W., only because she belongs to S.C. community. Therefore, the view is that the accused cannot be found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act and they are entitled for an acquittal. The minimum sentence in most cases is six months imprisonment while the maximum is five years sentence and with fine. In some cases the minimum is enhanced to one year while the maximum goes up to life imprisonment or even death sentence. State of Karnataka vs Appa Balu Ingale And Others - AIR 1993 SC 1126, 1993 (1) ALT Cri 390, 1993 CriLJ 1029 is the 1 st case before the apex court up holding the objects of the act by referring to Art 17 of THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Section 4 - of the act deals with punishment for neglect of duties by a public servant. According to this section, if a public servant, who is not a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, deliberately neglects his duties, which he should perform under the Act, he is liable for punishment with imprisonment up to six months. Section 5 - provides enhanced punishment for subsequent conviction with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to the punishment provided for that offence Section 7 - Attachment and forfeiture of property. Section 14 - of the act clearly states about the constitution of special courts for hearing cases on atrocities against scheduled caste and scheduled tribes. for the purpose of providing speedy trial. 5 P a g e
A Reference from Spl court Mahbubnagar district with the following questions came up for before the HON BLE High Court of A. P (1) Whether the Special Court constituted under Section 14 of the Central Act XXXIII of 1989 is empowered and competent to take cognizance of and to try, any offence other than an offence under the said Act with which the accused may, under the CrPC be charged at the same trial. (2) Whether the Hon'ble High Court itself had the power and is competent to vest and if so, the Circular order in Roc. No. 2582/SO/91, dated 12-2-1992 of Hon'ble High Court, issued in exercise of its powers under Section 407 of the Criminal Procedure Code vests such non-territorial jurisdiction upon such Special Court as stated in High Court's Rc. No. 2137/E-1/94, dt. 4-9-1996; (3) If the answer to Question Nos. 1 and 2 is 'no' what is the procedure to be adopted in respect of those cases pending trial (which were received by transfer from Special Court, Mahabubnagar) and those charge sheets pending consideration before this Court involving commission of an offence under both the Act and IPC (Special Minor Offences under the Act and Major Offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 376, 354, IPC etc.,) both of which are committed during the course of same transaction; On such reference, their lords ships Justice P.V. Reddy and R. Bapat of A. P. HIGH COURT in the case reported at 1999 (3) ALT 533 or 1999 (1) ALT Cri 688 formulated the following questions for consideration and Bench gives an authoritative pronouncement on the following legal questions: (1) What is the procedure to be followed while taking cognizance of the offences by the Special Court, constituted under Section 14 of the Act: (a) Whether it can take cognizance of the offences directly as a Court of original criminal jurisdiction without being committed by a Magistrate following the procedure laid down under Criminal Procedure Code. (b) Whether it can take cognizance of the offences only on committal by a competent Magistrate Court following the procedure as laid down under Cr.P.C. (2) Whether the direction in the Notification No. 2 in G.O.Ms. No. 10, Social Welfare (H) Department, dated: 7-2-1996 to the Presiding Officers of Special Courts "to receive, try and dispose of the cases filed under the Act" will vest the Special Court with the power to take cognizance of the offences under the Act directly without being committed under Section 193 Cr.P.C? (3) Whether the provisions of Clause (v) of Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act are attracted in the case of an offence under Section 302 I.P.C. which is punishable with death or imprisonment for life? (4) Whether the provisions of Clause (v) of Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act are attracted where an offence is committed against a person or property without knowing that such person is a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe 6 P a g e
or such a property belongs to such a member, but comes to light subsequent to the commission of the offence that such person is a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe? (5) Whether the Special Court has got jurisdiction to try an offender who is a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe when he commits an offence under the Act along with other offenders who are not members of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe? The charge-sheets (Police reports) alleging commission of offences under the Act cannot be directly filed in the Special Court. If the acts alleged against the accused constitute atrocities as defined under Section 3 of the Act and also an offence under the Indian Penal Code as well, accused can be tried for both in the same proceeding. Further, there is no bar in the Act for a Special Court trying the offence under the Indian Penal Code. Where the offence is committed against a person or property without knowing that such person is a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, but, it comes to light only subsequent to the Commission of offence that such person is a member of SC/ST. Here again, the answer is in the negative. The words 'on the ground' employed in clause (v) are important. It is the motive and intention at the time of commission of offence that matters. If the offence punishable with a term of 10 years of imprisonment or more is committed not because the victim is a member of SC/ST, but for other reasons or without having knowledge about the caste, there is no scope to apply Section 3(2)(v). For instance, a case of robbery for gain punishable under Section 392 does not attract Section 3(2)(v) merely because the victim is a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe person. The last question is whether the Special Court has jurisdiction to try SC/ST Act offender when he commits an offence under the Act along with other offenders who are not members of SC/ST. The answer to this question is to be found in Section 223, Cr.P.C. The persons accused of the same offence or different offences committed in the course of the same transaction can be charged and tried together. Section 223, Cr.P.C. comes into play by virtue of Section 4, Cr.P.C Although the Act is silent about the committal proceedings, in view of the judgment of Apex Court in Gangula Ashok v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 2000 SC 740, the committal of the case is a sine qua non for the Special Court to take cognizance inasmuch as the Presiding Officer of the Special Court is an Officer of the cadre of Sessions Judge and the provisions of the Act have not specifically barred the applicability of the provisions of the Code, particularly Section 193 thereof." 7 P a g e
Spl court has no authority to directly take cognizance without committal is again observed, in Anumula Raji Reddy vs State Of A.P., Rep. By Public... on 30 July, 2004, vide citations: 2005 CriLJ 220 Recently, the Supreme Court of India in Rattiram & Ors vs State Of M.P.Tr.Insp.Of Police, on 17 February, 2012 held that- the objection relating to non-compliance of Section 193 of the Code, which eventually has resulted in directly entertaining and taking cognizance by the Special Judge under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, does not vitiate the trial and on the said ground alone, the conviction cannot be set aside or there cannot be a direction of retrial and, therefore, the decision rendered in Bhooraji (supra) lays down the correct law inasmuch as there is no failure of justice or no prejudice is caused to the accused. The decisions rendered in Moly (supra) and Vidyadharan (supra) have not noted the decision in Bhooraji (supra), a binding precedent, and hence they are per incuriam and further, the law laid down therein, whereby the conviction is set aside or matter is remanded after setting aside the conviction for fresh trial, does not expound the correct proposition of law and, accordingly, they are hereby, to that extent, overruled. Act mandates establishment of exclusive Special Courts and appointment of Exclusive Special Public Prosecutors to try the offences under this act. This is made to enable speedy justice and expeditious disposal of cases. The Special Courts have been authorized to take direct cognizance of offence and as far as possible, completion of trial of the case within two months, from the date of filing of the charge sheet. The State Governments have been asked to prepare a panel of senior advocates who have been in practice for not less than seven years for each District, for conducting the cases filed under this act. The State Governments have also been asked to review the performance of these advocates at least twice in a calendar year. They are also asked to review various reports received, investigation made and preventive steps taken by the District Magistrate, Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, relief and rehabilitation facilities provided to the victims etc. Section 23 of the Act, authorizes the Central Government to frame rules for carrying out the purpose of the Act. If was drawing power from this section that the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 were framed. According to Rule 7(1), investigation of offence committed under the SC/ST Act cannot be investigated by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP). In E.SESHAIAH Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, 2000(2) ALT (Crl.) 91 A.P. while dealing with the said Rule 7, it is held that the violation of the statutory provisions and would certainly vitiate the trial." 8 P a g e
By following such observation in Stalin Father @ Nanda Stalin @... vs The State Of A.P. for non-compliance of Rule 7 inasmuch as the investigation was conducted by the Officers who are not competent to conduct the investigation, in the light of Rule 7, the investigation also is defective and on that ground also the appellant/a-1 is entitled for acquittal in relation to the charges with which he was charged with. However in Yannam Satyanarayan vs State Of A.P. 2006 CriLJ 2320 it is observed that- It is open to the accused or the party aggrieved at the initial stages to raise such objection on the investigation conducted by any Officer other than the one contemplated under Rule 7 of the Rules and invite a decision before the commencement of the trial itself. However, the same cannot be taken advantage after completion of the entire trial, more so, in the absence of showing any substantial prejudice. It is only where the Court on either stage comes to conclusion that the rights and interests, of the accused or the party aggrieved have been substantially affected or prejudiced, necessary benefit has to be extended. We accordingly hold that the said Rule is not mandatory but only a directory one. Consequently we overrule the decision in Viswanadhula Chittibabu v. State of A.P Denial of anticipatory bail (Section 18)- In K. Mallesham vs State Of A.P. on 10 August, 1998, reported at: 1998 (5) ALD 120, 1998 (2) ALD Cri 562, 1998 (2) ALT Cri 395, 1999 CriLJ 32 it is observed- The Court's jurisdiction to issue appropriate directions in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 438 of the Code would in no way be excluded by mere mentioning the provisions of the Prevention of Atrocities Act in the FIR or in the complaint, as the case may be. The Court's jurisdiction in no way could be effected by what the Station House Officer docs at the time of registration of the crime. The crucial question would be as to whether the contents of the complaint or the FIR would attract the provisions of the Prevention of Atrocities Act. Mere mention or non-mention of the provisions of the Prevention of Atrocities Act is of no consequence. In a given case, the contents of the allegations may attract the provisions of the Prevention of Atrocities Act, though there is no such mention of the provisions at the time of registration of the crime. Like-wise, the allegations in the FIR or the complaint may not attract the provisions of the Prevention of Atrocities Act, at all, though a mention is made in the FIR of those provisions. What is required is a pragmatic assessment of the contents of the complaint in every given case. Even if there is a single averment attracting the provisions of the Prevention of Atrocities Act, it would be enough to exclude the operation of Section 438 of the Code. What is important is to have an assessment of the cumulative effect of the allegations made in the Complaint or the FIR, as the case may be. 9 P a g e
In Public Prosecutor, High Court Of... vs V.M. Ramaswamy and Ors. on 5 September, 1994 1995 reported as(1) ALT Cri 259, 1995 CriLJ 1905 it is observed that, The intention part of it is very emphatic. Except the abuse of accused No. 1 as against the deceased, as "Emira Erikala Naa Kodaka," no other words was used by the accused even as per the evidence of P.W. 1. P.W. 3 a close relative of the deceased has not even stated that the deceased used such expression so as to offend the deceased. On the other hand, it was a simple quarrel between two persons on the ground that one of them had teased or laughed at the concubine of the other. That was the real motive for accused No. 1 to commit the offence as against the deceased and nothing more than that. Therefore, no offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is brought out beyond any degree of doubt much less reasonable doubt So the genesis of the incident should be proved as an intentional atrocity on caste basis but not on any other issue. In Dinesh @ Buddha vs State Of Rajasthan apex court observed that,- Sine qua non for application of Section 3(2)(v) is that an offence must have been committed against a person on the ground that such person is a member of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. In the instant case no evidence has been led to establish this requirement. It is not case of the prosecution that the rape was committed on the victim since she was a member of Scheduled Caste. In the absence of evidence to that effect, Section 3(2)(v) has no application. State Of A.P. Rep. By The Advocate vs S. Tulasidas, Advocate, S. Sharat... reported as 2002 (2) ALT 461, it is a case where an advocate gave complaint against the presiding officer of the court for alleged offence under ST& SC Act. In Bharat Petroleum Corporation... vs Union of India and Others on 28 June, 2000(Equivalent citations: 2000 (5) ALD 566, 2000 (5) ALT 602) it is observed,- Having given serious consideration to the issue, I am of the view that the contention of the learned Government Pleader cannot be countenanced for the simple reason the very section itself is specific that the insult or intimidation should have taken place in public view. It need not be a public place, it could also be a private place. The intention of the Parliament was very clear that this insult or intimidation should have been caused in a place within the public view. If it is committed in any place which is not within the public view, it would not be treated as an offence. Otherwise, the Parliament could have omitted the words within the public view, and it would be redundant if the contention of the learned Government Pleader is accepted. Admittedly, in the instant case, the alleged offence has taken place in the chambers of the Officers where there was no public, and which was not within the public view. It is not even the contention of the 4th respondent that the events were viewed by the public on the days mentioned by him in the complaint. In such a situation, it 10 P a g e
would be very difficult for this Court to conclude that even though public did not view the event, yet, it has to be treated as a offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. IN NATIONAL CAMPAIGNON DALIT HUMAN RIGHTS & ORS. Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.(WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 140 of 2006) as observed on 15 December, 2016 by the apex court Bench: Justice T.S. Thakur, D.Y. Chandrachud, L. Nageswara Rao, the authorities referred in the act has to consider the proper implementation of the act which Provides compensation, relief and rehabilitation for victims of atrocities or their legal heirs (Section 17(3), 21(2)iii, Rule 11, 12(4)). Identification of atrocity prone areas (Section 17(1), 21(2) vii, Rule 3(1)). Setting up deterrents to avoid committing of atrocities on the SCs amongst others (Rule 3i to 3xi). Setting up a mandatory, periodic monitoring system at different levels (Section 21(2)v): District level (Rule 3xi, 4(2), 4(4), 17). State level (8xi, 14, 16, 18). National level (Section 21(2), 21(3), 21(4)). On abuse of the provisions of the Act- In K.Aravinda Rao vs 1.) A.Sunder Kumar Das and Others, on 19 January, 2015 JUSTICES M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO and S.V. BHATT made observations on how to follow Rule 5 under the act to register F.I.R if case is made out or to close the complaint if no case is made out. Rule 7 has to be followed if the case is registered. HOW the grievance of the complaint has been given the colour of atrocity under the act is also discussed. IN. N.V. Ramana Raju AND AN OTHER vs The State of Public PROSECUTOR, DECIDED. on 1 August, 2014 BY HONBLE HIGH COUT AT HYDERABAD,As per the allegations made in the complaint, the petitioners herein denied promotion to Dr.Y.Kiran Kumar in time, thereby insulted and humiliated him as he belongs to Scheduled Caste community. But by referring to (2007) 12 SCC 1, the complaint was quashed u/s 482 CrPC. The Hon ble Supreme Court of India in Gorige Pentaiah vs State Of A.P. & Ors on 20 August, 2008 by the Bench of Dalveer Bhandari, and J.M. Panchal quashed the frivolous complaint in Cr no 281 of 2004 of Uppal P.S Hyderabad, which is with facts of civil case for the allegation "AA LAMBADODU, let him come home today we will settle the matter with him. Smt. Asmatunnisa also abused my wife. The Supreme Court quashed the crime no: 50 of 2006 of jublihills p.s in the case of Asmathunnisa vs State of A.P & Anr on 29 March, 2011 by Bench of Dalveer Bhandari, Deepak Verma J.J 11 P a g e
In respect of rival claims of right over immovable property the complaint for offence u/s 3(1) viii for filing suit, is quashed in Ravinder Singh vs Sukhbir Singh & Ors on 11 January, 2013 by apex court Bench:of B.S. Chauhan, V. Gopala Gowda B. Sudhakar Reddy vs The S.H.O., RGIA, Cyberabad, Shamshabad, Ranga Reddy District and 4 others, WP No.13577 OF 2012 by order dt 26-04-2013 case observed that, that the complaint is unclear in various aspects regarding the offence committed under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act; and the document produced by the accused before this Court would establish the falsity of the allegations are matters which cannot be examined at this stage, i.e., when investigation has just commenced. In view of this statutory stipulation, it is not permissible for the Sub-Inspector of Police to investigate a complaint under the Act. The 4th respondent shall, forthwith, entrust investigation of FIR No.145 of 2012 to a police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. The Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes ((Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment ACT, 2015 It came in to force on 26-01-2016 with following Amendments- 1. Amendments to chapter ii (OFFENCES OF ATROCITIES) to include new definitions, new offences, to rephrase existing sections and the scope of presumptions. 2. Institutional strengthening 3. Appeals 4. Establishing rights of victims and witnesses (new chapter vi A) 5. Strengthening preventive measures Present relief amounts details Rs 85,000 to the victim in case of offences like Prevention from voting, filing nomination, Forcing, intimidating or obstructing a holder of office of Panchayat or Municipality from performing duties etc. Rs 5,00,000 to the victim in case of rape and Rs 8,25,000 in case of gang rape Rs 8,25,000 in case of murder Rs 1,00,000 in case of imposition or threatening a social or economic boycott Rs 1,00,000 in case of preventing a SC/ST entering any place of worship which is open to the public etc. 12 P a g e
Amendment of wilful negligence of public servant- The term wilful negligence of public servants at all levels, starting from the registration of complaint, and covering aspects of dereliction of duty under this Act has been clearly defined. Presumption to the offences has been added to the act- If the accused was acquainted with the victim or his family, the court will presume that the accused was aware of the caste or tribal identity of the victim unless proved otherwise. 13 P a g e