DASHRATH SAHU VS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Advertisements

Spread the love

Post Views: 163

CITATION- 2024 INSC 68

DATE OF JUDGMENT- FEBRUARY 29, 2024.

COURT- THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

APPELLANT- DASHRATH SAHU

RESPONDENT- STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

BENCH- B.R. GAVAI, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, SANDEEP MEHTA

INTRODUCTION

The case involves an appeal filed by the appellant challenging a ruling issued by the High Court of Chhattisgarh. The ruling pertains to the rejection of a joint application under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The application specifically concerns an offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. This appeal raised eminent questions regarding the conviction of the accused appellant and the rejection of the application, prompting a thorough examination of the legal provisions and circumstances surrounding the nature of the case.

FACTS OF THE CASE

An important fact of the case is in relation with the conviction and appeal, the accused appellant was convicted for offenses under Sections 451 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The appellant filed an appeal challenging this judgment.
During the pendency of the appeal, the accused appellant and the complainant jointly filed an application under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking a compromise.
The High Court partially allowed the joint application, acquitting the accused appellant of the charges under Sections 451 and 354 of the IPC. However, the application was rejected as an offense under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act.
The accused appellant being dissatisfied with the High Court’s order, the accused appellant filed an appeal before the Supreme Court challenging the rejection of the joint application pertaining to the offense under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act.

ISSUES RAISED

Whether the conviction under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act justified?
Was the rejection of the joint application under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, concerning the offense under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, justified?

CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT

The main argument posed by the appellant was that the joint application had been filed on the basis of an amicable settlement reached between the appellant and the complainant. It was contended that the rejection of the application disregarded the willingness of both parties to resolve the matter outside of court.
The appellant questioned the legality of the rejection of the joint application, putting forward an argument that there were no legal grounds and justifications for disallowing and intruding on the compromise agreement. They claimed that the rejection was arbitrary and not supported by the law on any basis.
Furthermore, the appellant argued that the punishment imposed for the offense under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act was disproportionate to the nature of the offense of the case. It was asserted that a compromise agreement was a fair and just resolution given in the context of this case.

CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT

One of the major arguments posed by the respondent was that the offense under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act is non-compoundable, which means it cannot be settled through a compromise between the parties. An assertion was made that the rejection of the joint application was justified on this ground.
Additionally, the respondent contended that allowing a compromise in cases involving offenses against marginalized communities, such as those protected under the SC/ST Act, undermine the protection and rights of victims and poses greater threat to the stability of the society. They argued that such offenses require strict enforcement and could not be compromised for the greater public interest.
The respondent emphasized on the public interest, as ensuring justice and accountability for offenses under the SC/ST Act in an important aspect. They argued that allowing compromises in such cases could send the wrong message and weaken the fear people committing such crimes.
Certain precedents were taken into consideration while posing further arguments in the court of law. The respondent cited legal precedents for supporting the non-compoundable offences, particularly those involving serious violations of human rights or protected groups.

JUDGEMENT

The court laid an interpretation of the provisions under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, to determine whether the offense in question is compoundable and whether a compromise agreement can be accepted or not. The court laid an emphasis on the public interest, while ensuring justice for offenses under the SC/ST Act against the possibility of resolving the matter through a compromise. It assessed whether allowing a compromise in this case would undermine the protection and rights of victims or would pose as a benefit. The court examined the factual considerations and aspects of the case.

The Supreme Court set aside and quashed the conviction of the appellant for the offense under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Furthermore, the appellant was acquitted of the charge under the said section of the Act. Therefore, the appellant prevailed in the appeal, and the conviction against them was overruled by the supreme court.

ANALYSIS

The appellant emerged victorious in the case, as the Supreme Court overruled his conviction for the offense under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The court held that the conviction was unsustainable on merits, leading to the acquittal of the appellant from the charge. Furthermore, the appellant’s appeal was allowed, resulting in the quashing of the conviction recorded by the trial court and upheld by the High Court. As a result of the successful appeal, the appellant’s bail bonds were discharged, implying their release from any custodial obligations.

CONCLUSION

Based on its analysis of the case of Dashrath Sahu vs state of Chhattisgarh; legal provisions, public interests, factual circumstances and knowledge, and legal precedents, were taken into account while delivering the judgement. The supreme court rendered a judgment overturning the rejection of joint application. It also determined the fate of the appellant’s conviction under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act, potentially acquitting the appellant.

REFERENCES

This is written by Nyasa Tahim, student of Vivekananda Institute of professional studies (VIPS); Intern at Legal Vidhya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.