# Sri Narain Trivedi & others v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2009) 1 ILRA 132
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2009-01-15
- **Case number:** Crl. Appeal No. 6305 of 2008
- **Bench:** Shiv Charan, Vijay Kumar Verma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sri-narain-trivedi-others-v-state-of-u-p-41331
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Criminal Appeal-Bail pending appealconviction u/s 3 (2)(5) SC/ST Act
alongwith
separate
conviction
u/s
307/34 IPC-conviction under SC/St Act
simply because the injured belongs
Schduled Cast-held-not proper against
the sprit of section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Actentitled for Bail.

Held: Para 9

As would appear from the language used
by the Legislature in section 3(2)(5)
SC/ST 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 enhanced
punishment of life imprisonment would
be awarded in such case, meaning
thereby that conviction and sentence
under
section
3(2)(5)
SC/ST
Act
simplicitor is not permissible and in
cases where an offence under the Indian
Penal
Code
punishable
with
imprisonment for a term of ten years or
more is committed 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, then in such
case the accused will be convicted and
sentenced for the offence under Indian
Penal Code read with Section 3(2)(5)
SC/ST Act with imprisonment for life and
also with fine. Therefore, in the present
case,
the
appellants
could
not
be
convicted and sentenced under section
3(2)(5) SC/ST Act simplicitor.

## Text

132 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009
Nagarkar vs. Union of India and others
(AIR 1999 SC 2881), in which reference
has been made to the case of Rajasthan
Pharmaceuticals laboratory, Bangalore
V. State of Karnataka (1981) 1 SCC
645).

10. Let a copy of this order be sent
by Registrar General within a week to Sri
Rajeev Kumar Tripathi (H.J.S) the then
Additional Sessions Judge Court No.3
Farrukhabad for his future guidance.

11. However, hearing of the appeal
is expedited. Office is directed to prepare
the typed paper book of the record at the
earliest and list this appeal for final
hearing in the month of May, 2009.
Application rejected.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.01.2009

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SHIV CHARAN, J.
THE HON'BLE VIJAY KUMAR VERMA, J.

Crl. Appeal No. 6305 of 2008

Sri Narain Trivedi & others ...Appellants

Versus
State of U.P.

...Opposite party

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Jagdish Singh Sengar

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
Sri Manish Srivastava
Sri Saurabh Sinha
Sri Vikas Srivastava

Criminal Appeal-Bail pending appealconviction u/s 3 (2)(5) SC/ST Act
alongwith
separate
conviction
u/s
307/34 IPC-conviction under SC/St Act
simply because the injured belongs
Schduled Cast-held-not proper against
the sprit of section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Actentitled for Bail.

Held: Para 9

As would appear from the language used
by the Legislature in section 3(2)(5)
SC/ST 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 enhanced
punishment of life imprisonment would
be awarded in such case, meaning
thereby that conviction and sentence
under
section
3(2)(5)
SC/ST
Act
simplicitor is not permissible and in
cases where an offence under the Indian
Penal
Code
punishable
with
imprisonment for a term of ten years or
more is committed 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, then in such
case the accused will be convicted and
sentenced for the offence under Indian
Penal Code read with Section 3(2)(5)
SC/ST Act with imprisonment for life and
also with fine. Therefore, in the present
case,
the
appellants
could
not
be
convicted and sentenced under section
3(2)(5) SC/ST Act simplicitor.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shiv Charan, J.)

Shri Saurabh Sinha and Sri Manish
Srivastava, Advocates filed parcha pairvi
on behalf of the complainant. It may be
placed on record.

2. Objections filed on behalf of the
State against the prayer of bail be placed
on record.
1 All] Sri Narain Trivedi and others V. State of U.P.
133
3. Heard Sri Jagdish Singh Sengar,
learned counsel for the appellants, A.G.A.
for the State and Sri Vikas Srivastava,
Advocate holding brief of Sri Saurabh
Sinha, counsel for the complainant on the
prayer of bail of appellant Sri Narain
Trivedi, Ashok Kumar @ Khanna and
Pramod Kumar @ Nanhkau convicted by
Sri Dilip Singh, the then Addl. Sessions
Judge/Special
Judge,
S.C./S.T.
Act,
Fatehpur in Special S.T. No. 9/2003
(State Vs. Sri Narain Trivedi and others)
under sections 307/34, 504 I.P.C. and
3(2)(5)
Scheduled
Castes
and
the
Scheduled
Tribes
(Prevention
of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short, "the
SC/ST Act") Act, P.S. Husaingan, District
Fatehpur and perused the record.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants
argued that learned Sessions Judge
wrongly convicted and sentenced the
appellants separately for the offence
under section 307 I.P.C. and section
3(2)(5) SC/ST Act. Learned counsel also
argued that the learned Sessions Judge
was also not justified in convicting and
sentencing the appellants for the offence
under section 307/34 I.P.C. He further
argued that although injuries are of fire
arm, but are on the thigh, a non-vital part
of the body. He also argued that the
doctor has not alleged the injuries as
grievous. Hence, the injuries can be called
simple in nature and considering the
nature of the injuries, these appellants are
entitled for bail. He also argued that no
case can be said to be made out under
SC/ST Act, as the offence was not
committed on the grounds that the victim
belongs to Scheduled Caste. It is further
contended that the appellants were on bail
during trial and they have not misused the
bail.

5. A.G.A. as well as counsel for the
complainant opposed the prayer for bail.
The learned counsel for the complainant
argued that the accused persons uttered
the word "sweeper (Bhangi)" at the time
of committing the offence and hence the
Sessions Judge was justified in convicting
the appellants under SC/ST Act also.

6. We have considered the facts and
circumstances of the case. Without
expressing any opinion on merit, it is a fit
case of bail.

7. Let the appellants Sri Narain
Trivedi, Ashok Kumar @ Khanna and
Pramod Kumar @ Nanhkau be released
on bail in the above case till disposal of
the appeal on their furnishing personal
bond and two sureties each in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the trial
court concerned. Realization of fine to the
extent of fifty per cent shall remain stayed
till disposal of the appeal. Remaining fifty
per cent fine shall be deposited in the trial
court prior to the release.

8. It is worthwhile to mention that
the learned Sessions Judge has convicted
and sentenced the appellants to undergo
imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of
Rs.3000/- each under section 3(2)(5)
SC/ST Act. They have also been
convicted separately under section 307/34
I.P.C.
and
sentenced
to
undergo
imprisonment for seven years and to pay a
fine of Rs.2000/- each. This method of
convicting and sentencing the appellants
is not in accordance with law. Section
3(2)(5) SC/ST Act does not constitute any
substantive offence and hence, conviction
and sentence of the appellants under
section 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act simplicitor is
wholly illegal. Section 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act
provides as under:-
134 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009
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;

9. As would appear from the
language used by the Legislature in
section 3(2)(5) SC/ST 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
enhanced
punishment
of
life
imprisonment would be awarded in such
case, meaning thereby that conviction and
sentence under section 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act
simplicitor is not permissible and in cases
where an offence under the Indian Penal
Code punishable with imprisonment for a
term of ten years or more is committed
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,
then in such case the accused will be
convicted and sentenced for the offence
under Indian Penal Code read with
Section
3(2)(5)
SC/ST
Act
with
imprisonment for life and also with fine.
Therefore, in the present case, the
appellants could not be convicted and
sentenced under section 3(2)(5) SC/ST
Act simplicitor.

10. Mistake which has been
committed by the learned Sessions Judge
in present case in convicting and
sentencing the appellants under section
3(2)(5) simplicitor has been noticed by us
in some other cases also.

The Registrar General is directed to
send a copy of this order to Sri Dilip
Singh,
the
then
Addl.
Sessions
Judge/Special
Judge,
SC/ST
Act,
Fatehpur for his future guidance.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.01.2009

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAN VIJAI SINGH, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.16579 of 2006

Phool Chand Yadav

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Anuj Kumar
Sri C.B. Yadav
S.C.

Constitution
of
India-Art.
226Cacellation of fair price shop-based on
report submitted by official concern-in
reply to show cause notice-alongwith
reply the petitioner submitted affidavit
of
BPC
card
holder
having
full
satisfaction with the distribution of
petitioner-Non
consideration
of
the