Sandeep Mehta, J. - (1.) THE instant criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr. P.C. is directed against the order dated 11 -10 -2012 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Bhilwara in Sessions Case No. 31/2011 whereby charges have been framed against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 143, 187, 332, 353 and 333 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) of the S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 3 of the P.D.P.P. Act. The grievance of the petitioner is limited to the extent of framing of charge under Section 3(2)(v) of the S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Learned counsel submits that F.I.R. was filed on the complaint of Dr. Madanlal Kawant, the Medical Officer, C.H.C. Jahajpur with the allegations that on 24.2.2009 when he was working in the health centre, the petitioner and certain other persons came to his chamber and misbehaved with him and damaged the furniture. The peons Prakash Harijan, Babulal Harijan and Ramsukh Meena were also beaten. Learned counsel submits that as per the allegation of the complaint, F.I.R. No. 35/2009 for the offences under Sections 186, 332, 353, 143 I.P.C. and Section 3 of the P.D.P.P. Act was registered. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the police after investigation has filed charge -sheet in the matter including the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act simply on the ground that the Medical Officer complainant and the peon who were allegedly assaulted are the persons belonging to Scheduled Caste. Learned counsel submits that it is not the allegation of the complainant or the witness Babulal or any other witness in their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. that the assault was made by the accused persons with the intention that they were committing the offence on the Medical Officer and the peon for the reason that these persons belonged to scheduled caste. Learned counsel places reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in : AIR 2000 S.C. 1876 in support of his contention and prays that the order framing charge against the petitioners for the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act be quashed.
(2.) LEARNED P.P. vehemently opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the orders impugned and the record.
(3.) FROM a perusal of the record, the undisputed fact which emerges is that in the F.I.R. or in the statements of the witnesses it has not been mentioned that the offence was committed by the accused on the ground that they were committing such offence deliberately upon the persons belonging to S.C./S.T. Community. Section 3(2)(v) of the S.C./S.T. Act for which charge has been framed reads as under: - (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; 6. From a bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it is evident that the corresponding offence under the Indian Penal Code which is referred to in the section should have been committed by the accused upon the victim on the ground that he is a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or that the property in question belongs to such a person. Therefore, ex -facie the order framing charge against the accused to the extent of the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act cannot be sustained. The revision petition thus succeeds in part. While upholding the order framing charge for the remaining offences, the same is quashed to the extent of charge framed under Section 3(2)(v) of the S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the matter is directed to be transmitted to the Sessions Judge, Bhilwara or to any other Court to which the matter is assigned by the learned Sessions Judge for trial in accordance with law.;