P. SHIV PRASAD RAO Vs. STATE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the Petitioner has challenged the validity of action taken by the Magistrate, by which, while hearing the matter under the provisions of I.P.C., learned Magistrate noticed that on the basis of Material produced before him, prima facie, an offence under Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is also made out and in view of the above, in the capacity of committal Court, he committed the matter for trial to the concerned Special Court.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner argues that as per documents filed by the prosecution, the prosecutrix namely Ku. Nisha Shalini Murmur has been shown to be belonging to Santal Caste, which has been declared as the Scheduled Tribe in the State of Bihar. He refers to The Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, in which under Part-III of schedule, which relates to Bihar, Caste Santal has been shown to be a Scheduled Tribe. His submission is that since the offence took place in the State of Chhattisgarh, therefore, according to the aforesaid Order, 1950 the said caste does not come as Scheduled Tribe for this area, therefore, an offence of atrocity would not be made out.

(3.) IN view of the above and also in view of the Caste certificate of the complainant, in which she has been shown to be belonging to Santal caste, it cannot be said that there was no prima facie evidence to hold that the victim/ complainant was a member of Scheduled Tribe for the purposes of this Act on the ground that the offence is said to have been committed in the State of Chhattisgarh. She would be deemed to be a Scheduled Tribe for the purposes of this Act for entire area to which the Act applies by virtue of Sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the said Act, which says that "it extends to the whole of INdia except the State of Jammu and Kashmir".