Yogesh Kumar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal

Instant Misc. Criminal Case under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is filed by the applicant being aggrieved of judgment dated 22.01.2026 passed by this Court in CRA No. 1565 of 2023 (Yogesh Kumar @ Lallu Soni Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.) on a short ground that there were four victims. As far as other victims are concerned, learned trial Court granted sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 326A of Indian Panel Code but in relation to victim Anil Kujur, learned trial Court has sentenced the present applicant with life imprisonment.

It is submitted that, since the conviction of the applicant under Section 3(2)(v-a) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act have been set-aside by this Court while deciding the CRA No. 1565 of 2023, conviction of Yogesh Kumar Soni @ Lallu Soni under Section 326A of IPC needs to be altered from life imprisonment to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years.

After hearing Shri Pradeep Naveira, learned counsel for the applicant, we have carefully perused the provisions contained in Section 3(2)(v) and Section 3(2)(v-a) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and find that that there is a basic difference in the application of aforesaid two provisions.

Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, if would have been applied, then as per the provisions contained in Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, if life imprisonment would have been on account of conviction for an offence under the Indian Penal Code punishable for imprisonment for a term of 10 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.

Section 3(2)(v-a) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act provides that, if a person commits any offence specified in the schedule, against a person or property, knowing that such person is a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes or such property belongs to such member, shall be punishable with such punishment as specified under the Indian Penal Code or such offences and shall also be liable to fine.

Thus, it is evident that, had the conviction of the appellant been recorded by the trial Court with the aid of Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the appellant been sentenced to life imprisonment on account of roping in the enabling provision contained in Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, then, with the acquittal of the appellant under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the substantive sentence would have been the one awarded under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code.

But in the present case, Section 3(2)(v-a) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act provides that if a person is convicted for an offence mentioned in the Indian Panel Code, then his substantive sentence under that Section will be applicable to the conviction under Section 3(2)(v-a) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

Thus, Section 3(2)(v-a) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act takes the nature of sentence in its fold as is prescribed for a substantive offence under Indian Panel Code.

In the present case, since we had set aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 3(2)(v-a) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, there cannot be any consequent reduction in the sentence under the substantive Section of the Indian Penal Code because, under the substantive Section of the Indian Penal Code, i.e. Section 326-A of the IPC, there is a provision for a minimum punishment of 10 years, extendable to life imprisonment.

Looking to the gravity of the offence qua each of the victims, the learned trial Court exercised its discretion and sentenced the appellant under Section 326-A of the Indian Penal Code, in relation to victim Anil Kujur, with life imprisonment. For the other victim, he has been sentenced to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment. That discretion having been exercised by the learned trial Court, in our opinion, does not called for any interference.

In our opinion, acquittal from the charges under Section 3(2) (v-a) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act will not automatically result in reduction of the substantive sentence from life imprisonment to imprisonment for 10 years, inasmuch as, unlike Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act where, if the punishment prescribed for a substantive offence is 10 years or more, irrespective of the substantive sentence, a Court is obliged to sentence an accused to life imprisonment if the provisions of Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are invoked, in the case of Section 3(2)(v-a) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the substantive sentence is not changed on account of invocation of Section 3(2)(v-a) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and conviction under Section 3(2) (v-a) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act takes the colour of the sentence prescribed under the substantive Section of the Indian Penal Code.

That being the difference, it is evident that since there was no conviction under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, conviction under Section substantive sentence will remain the same as has been directed by the learned trial Court, and it does not call for any alteration.

Accordingly, application fails and is dismissed.