High Court of Gujarat
MUKESHJI ATAJI THAKORversusSTATE OF GUJARAT
- Disposal
- 44-PARTLY ALLOWED @ FH
Holding
The conviction under Section 3(ii)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was set aside as the prosecution failed to prove the requisite intention that the offence was committed because the victim belonged to a Scheduled Caste.
Summary
Mukeshji Ataji Thakor was convicted of kidnapping, rape, and sexual assault of a 17‑year‑old girl belonging to a Scheduled Caste, and was sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 3(ii)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act along with other IPC and POCSO offences. The appellant appealed, contending that the trial court erred in invoking the Atrocities Act because the prosecution did not prove that the offences were committed on the ground of the victim’s caste. The High Court examined the testimony and found no evidence that the accused acted with the requisite knowledge or intention that the victim’s caste was the motive for the crime. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that mere knowledge of the victim’s caste is insufficient; the prosecution must show the offence was committed because of that status. Consequently, the conviction under Section 3(ii)(v) was set aside, the fine refunded, and the appeal was allowed in part.
Issues considered
- Whether the prosecution proved that the offence was committed on the ground of the victim's Scheduled Caste status as required under Section 3(ii)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
- Whether the conviction and life sentence under Section 3(ii)(v) can be sustained in the absence of evidence of the accused's knowledge and intention regarding the victim's caste
Legislation cited
Subjects
kidnappingrapesexual assaultPOCSO ActSC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Actcaste-based motiveintentionlife imprisonmentconviction set aside
Judgment
R/CR.A/671/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST CONVICTION) NO. 671 of 2017
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
MUKESHJI ATAJI THAKOR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DINESHKUMAR J PRAJAPATI(9979) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR YOGIN A BHAMBHANI(6444) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
MR JK SHAH APP for the Respondent
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
Date : 30/01/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA)
1. This Criminal Appeal, preferred by the sole accused Mukeshji Ataji
Thakor, under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C., is directed against the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.03.2016,
passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO & Atrocity) &
Additional Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar in Special (POCSO) Case
No. 29 of 2014, by which, the appellant accused has been convicted
and sentenced to as tabulated hereinafter:
Page 1 of 10
R/CR.A/671/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2026
Section Punishment Fine In default
363 of IPC RI for 3 yrs 500 SI for 1 month
366 of IPC RI for 5 yrs 1000 SI for 3 months
376 of IPC RI for 10 yrs 1000 SI for 3 months
4 of POCSO Act RI for 7 yrs 700 SI for 1 month
3(ii)(v) of RI for life
Atrocity Act
2. The case of the prosecution leading to conviction of the appellant –
accused is as follows :
The appellant – accused being a married person, was living
with his father-in-law at the village Varsoda, Mansa, Gandhinagar.
He came into contact with minor victim aged about 17 years, as a
result, on 21.12.2013, he took away the victim and went to Kutch-
Bhuj and remained together for about 6 months. The father of the
victim PW-1, had lodged an FIR with the Mansa Police Station,
which was registered as CR No. 141 of 2013, inter-alia, alleging
that, the accused had kidnapped her daughter with malafide
intention, During the course of investigation, on 18.06.2014, the
accused was arrested and the victim brought back to the village:
Varsoda and after due investigation, the appellant accused was
chargesheeted for the offences as referred above. The complainant
belonged to Schedule Caste and accused was knowing that the
victim was a member of Schedule Caste and despite of this, he
sexually abused her.
Page 2 of 10
R/CR.A/671/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2026
3. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions and it
was committed to the Sessions Court, Gandhinagar.
4. The Sessions Court, framed the charges against the accused –
appellant, which he did not admit and claimed to be tried.
5. In order to prove the charge, the prosecution examined following
witnesses and exhibited the documents :
Oral evidence :
PW 1 – Exh.11 Natwarbhai Balabhai Parmar, Complainant
PW 2 – Exh.15 Pushpaben Natwarbhai Shah
PW 3 – Exh.16 Victim
PW 4 – Exh.17 Dr. Jayesbhai Balwantsingh Rupala, Medical officer, Civil
Gandhinagar
PW 5 – Exh.26 Dr. Ranu Subirbhai Ghosh, Medical officer, Civil
Gandhinagar
PW 6 – Exh.27 Dr. Dipen Purshottambhai Vedh, Radiologist, Civil
Gandhinagar
PW 7 – Exh.28 Dr. Manishkumar Vinodanand Khant, Dentist, Civil
Gandhinagar
PW 8 – Exh.29 Bhikusingh Rajaji Chavda, Panch witness
PW 9 – Exh.31 Rajendrasinh Ratansinh Chavda, Panch witness
PW 10 – Exh.32 Jagdishbhai Revjibhai Patel, Panch witness
PW 11 – Exh.34 Govindbhai Hirjibhai Patel, Panch witness
PW 12 – Exh.36 Narottambhai Galabhai Shah, Panch witness
PW 13 – Exh.45 Kapilaben Girishbhai Shah, Panch witness
Page 3 of 10
R/CR.A/671/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2026
PW 14 – Exh.46 Neelamben Natwarlal Shah
PW 15 – Exh.47 Jinalben Natwarlal Shah
PW 16 – Exh.48 Baldevbhai Balabhai Shah
PW 17 – Exh.49 Ranjanben Baldevbhai Shah
PW 18 – Exh.50 Pradeepsinh Mulsinh Chavda
PW 19 – Exh.51 Ashokbhai Ramjibhai
PW 20 – Exh.52 Neetaben Baldevbhai
PW 21 – Exh.53 Vikramsinh Chatrasinh Rathod, PO
PW 22 – Exh.55 Bakaji Ramaji Thakor
PW 23 – Exh.57 Hetangiben Praghumansinh Chouhan
PW 24 – Exh.59 Manishaben Ranvirsinh Puwar
PW 25 – Exh.60 Navjibhai Rajaji Kotwal
PW 26 – Exh.62 Mauleshbhai Bhanuprasad Joshi, IO
PW 27 – Exh.64 Ramjibhai Varvabhai Rabari, DYSP
Documentary evidence :
Exh.12 Complaint
Exh.13 Victim Birth certificate
Exh.14 Caste certificate of complainant and victim
Exh.18 Police yadi for medical examination of victim
Exh.19 Medical certificate of victim
Exh.20 Victim case papers page 13 and X-ray plates no-4
Exh.21 Vicitm discharge card
Exh.22 Police yadi for medical examination of accused
Page 4 of 10
R/CR.A/671/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2026
Exh.23 Accused medical certificate
Exh.24 Accused case papers page-4
Exh.30 Panchnama of place of offence
Exh.33 Panchnama of place where both accused and victim stayed
Exh.37 Panchnama of clothes recovered and state of body of accused
Exh.38-44 Panch slips placed on clothes recovered
Exh.54 FIR
Exh.56 Victim’s birth certificate, application form for caste
certificate and necessary documents
Exh.58 Varsoda Gram panchayat Birth register year 1997, pade no.
Xerox
Exh.61 Report of founding of victim and accused from Kanakpur
village in Abdasa Taluka in Kacch district
Exh.63 Order for investigation
Exh.65 Forwarding of articles to FSL
Exh.66 Receipt of articles by FSL
Exh.67-69 FSL Forwarding letter and Report
6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the
appellant accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., was recorded, to
which, he stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated
in the alleged offence.
7. Though the opportunity was extended, no oral evidence being
adduced by the accused nor has produced any documentary
evidence.
Page 5 of 10
R/CR.A/671/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2026
8. After hearing the parties and upon appreciation of the evidence, the
appellant accused held guilty for the offence of kidnapping, rape and
sexual abuse. The trial Court, while invoking Section 3(ii)(v) of the
Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes (prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989, convicted the accused and sentenced him to suffer life
imprisonment.
9. Mr. Dinesh Prajapati, learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of
the appellant – accused, does not press the appeal on merits qua the
offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 of Indian Penal
Code and Section 4 of POCSO Act. He is questioning the validity
and correctness of the conviction under Section 3(ii) (v) of the
Atrocity Act.
10. Mr. Prajapati, learned counsel has submitted that, the trial Court has
committed the serious error in holding the appellant – accused guilty
of the offence punishable under Section 3(ii)(v) of the Atrocities
Act; to invoke the provision of SC ST Act, it must be proved that the
offence was committed on the ground that the victim belong to an
SC or ST Community and must be shown that the offence of rape
was committed only because the victim belonged to SC ST
Community and thus, merely proving an offence under the
provisions of IPC does not automatically attract the provisions of SC
ST Act; the charge under Section 3(ii)(v) of the SC ST Act has not
been substantiated by the prosecution, in as much as, there is no
evidence to prove that the accused was aware about the caste of the
victim and the witnesses including the I.O. failed to throw light on
the applicability of the provisions of SC ST Act. In support of his
Page 6 of 10
R/CR.A/671/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2026
submission, heavy reliance has been placed on the case of Khuman
Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No.1283 of
2019 decided on 27.08.2019) to submit that, in order to attract
Section 3(ii)(v) of the SC ST Act, it is required to be proved that the
offence must have been committed against the person on the ground
that such person is a member of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled
Tribe.
11. Learned APP Mr. Ronak Raval on the other hand submitted that the
offence of rape is proved against the accused beyond reasonable
doubt and the victim being a member of Scheduled Caste had been
subjected to sexual assault and therefore, the charge under Section
3(ii)(v) is also proved and there is sufficient evidence for proving the
charge.
12. The issue falls for our consideration as to whether the trial court was
justified in convicting the appellant-accused for the offence
punishable under Section 3(ii)(v) of the SC ST Act?
13. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, it would be
useful to reproduce the relevant section 3(ii)(v) of the SC ST Act
which reads as under:
“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 [knowing 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;”
Page 7 of 10
R/CR.A/671/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2026
14. Before we proceed further, it is relevant to analysis the evidence of
relevant witnesses on the aspect of invocation of the provision of the
Atrocity Act. PW-1 Natvar Parmar, PW-2 Pushpaben, PW-3 X…..
victim, are the material witnesses, as admittedly they belonged to
‘Chamar Caste’ and said caste would fall under the ST category. We
have carefully examined the oral testimony of the witnesses. None
of the witnesses have stated in their chief-examination that, the
offence was committed because the victim belonged to SCST caste.
It is relevant to note that, for about six months the parties had stayed
together as husband and wife and they were in relationship. We have
examined the case records, evidence and findings of the court below
on the aspect of conviction and sentence awarded under Section 3(ii)
(v) of the SC ST Act. The court below while convicting the
appellant under Section 3(ii)(v) of SC ST Act, has not properly
appreciated the evidence and failed to assign sound and cogent
reasons of his conclusion that why the offence under the provision of
SC ST Act is proved. The offence in the present case alleged to have
been committed on 21.12.2013. Section 3(ii)(v) of the SC ST Act
now been amended by virtue of Amendment Act 1 of 2016. By way
of this amendment “....on the ground that such person is a member
of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe” have been substituted
with the words “... knowing that such person is a member of
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe”. In the present case
unamended Section 3(2)(v) is applicable as the offence was on
21.12.2013. In such circumstances, in order to establish an offence
under Section 3(ii)(v) of the SCST Act, the prosecution is required
to prove that the offence is committed on the ground that such
Page 8 of 10
R/CR.A/671/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2026
person is a member of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. In the case
of Asrafi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No.1182 of
2015, decided on 08.12.2017), the Supreme Court while interpreting
unamended Section 3(2)(v) has observed that the statute laid stress
on the intention of the accused in committing such offence and
provisions can be pressed into service only it is proved that the
offence has been committed on the ground that the victim belonged
to SCST community and in absence of evidence proving intention of
the accused in committing the offence, upon the victim only because
she belongs to SCST community, the conviction cannot be
sustained. The same view has been reiterated by the Supreme Court
in the case of Asrafi Vs. State of U.P. (2018 (1) SCC 742) and in the
case of Khuman Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal
Appeal No.1283 of 2019, decided on 27.08.2019) and thereafter, in
the case of Patan Jamal Vali Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (AIR
2019 SC Page-2190).
15. Recently, the Supreme Court in the case of Keshaw Mahto @
Keshaw Kumar Mahto Vs. State of Bihar, [Special Leave Petition
(Cri) No. 12144 of 2025 dated 12.01.2026, (Coram: Honourable Mr.
Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Alok Aradhe, JJ.],
on the identical issue, after referring its earlier judgment (Shajan
Skaria Vs. State of Kerala, 2024 SCC On-line SC 2249), held that,
the offence under Section 3(i)(r), cannot stand merely on the fact
that the complainant is a member of Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled
Tribe, unless the insult or intimidation of the intention to humiliate
member of such community. The Supreme Court in para-14 of the
Page 9 of 10
R/CR.A/671/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2026
judgment, lays down that, even mere a knowledge of the fact that,
the complainant is a member of Scheduled Caste is not sufficient to
attract Section 3(i)(r).
16. Reverting to the facts of the present case, and in view of the settled
legal position of law, there is nothing on record to show that the
offence was committed because of victim belonged to SCST caste.
In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the
prosecution failed to bring on record any evidence which may
demonstrate that the victim was kidnapped and rapped on the ground
of her being scheduled caste and merely because victim is a
scheduled caste would not automatically attract the offence under
Section 3(ii)(v) of the SCST Act.
17. For the above reasons, we set aside the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 21.03.2016 convicting the accused appellant
under Section 3(ii)(v) of the SCST Act. Accordingly, the present
appeal is allowed in part. R & P shall be returned forthwith. If the
fine deposited qua the offence under Section 3(ii)(v) of the SCST
Act, it shall be refunded.
18. The present appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
(ILESH J. VORA,J)
(R. T. VACHHANI, J)
P.S. JOSHI
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges.
Digitally signed by: PALLAV SUBHASHCHANDRA JOSHI(HC00177), Principal Pvt. Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 30/01/2026 15:26:49
Page 10 of 10
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "kidnapping"Sign in to search