Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.24 seconds)Vidyadharan vs State Of Kerala on 14 November, 2003
12. This apart, the Supreme Court in Vidyadharan v. State of
Kerala (2004) 1 SCC 215) has pointed out the distinction between
the offences punishable under Section 354 of the IPC and Section
3(1)(xi) of the Act in the following terms -
Dinesh @ Buddha vs State Of Rajasthan on 28 February, 2006
However, neither the offence under Section 354 nor the one
under Section 509 of the IPC is punishable with imprisonment for a
term of 10 years. As such, the ingredient that it is committed on the
ground that the victim belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled
Tribe, which is sine quo non for applying the provision of Section
3(2)(v) of the Act, is not attracted (See. Dinesh v. State of
Rajasthan (2006) 3 SCC 771)
Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
Shankarlal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Anr. on 14 June, 1994
10. The Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order must be read as it
is. It is not even permissible to say that a caste, sub-caste, part or
group of any caste or community is synonymous to the one
mentioned in the Order if they are not so specifically mentioned in it.
The aforesaid observations are to be understood in the context of
Shankarlal's case wherein the prosecutrix claimed to be a member
of Suryavanshi chamar caste. Hence, the decision in Shankarlal's
case cannot be treated as an authority for the proposition that non-
production of caste certificate issued by the Competent Authority
would always be fatal to the prosecution.
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
1