ORDER: The question that arises in this criminal revision is when a person is charged for commission of offence under Sec.302, I.P.C. (2 Counts) in relation to persons belonging to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, whether charge under Sec.3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Act’) should also be framed? 2. The facts leading to the controversy can be briefly stated as;- The petitioner herein Elabi alias Murugesan one Palanivel, Selvaraj and Marialuis were friends. On 11.6.1999 at 10.30 P.M. they were playing cards. In the course of the play, altercation occurred, as a result of which the petitioner stabbed Selvaraj on his back with a knife. He had also attacked Palanivel with the same knife on the head, chest and rib, as a result of which Selvaraj and Palanivel died. A case in Crime No.148 of 1999 under Sec.302 was registered by the respondent. The respondent investigated the case and filed final report to the following effect: “On 11.6.1999 the accused being armed with a knife hidden in his wrist, with such intention of causing the murder of Selvaraj and Palanivel began to playing cards with them along with Mariyaluis at about 10.30 p.m. in a thatched shed situated on the western side of the graveyard at the western bank of Vennar river at Marakkadai Village. At that time and place, the accused voluntarily picked up rowdy quarrel with Selvaraj. When Selvaraj draw a card and for which Palanivel intervened, then all the three pushing each other and came near Saloon of Panneerselvam. At that place the accused with such intention of causing the murder of them taking the knife from his waist and saying and firstly voluntarily stabbed with knife indiscriminately on the back, forehead, right hand, left shoulder and left thigh of Selvaraj and he died there itself due to fracture of skull bone, shock and haemorrahage. On seeing that when Palanivel intervened and tried to catch the knife from Ilabi. The accused the knife caused injury in the hand of the accused. Hence the accused also with the such intention of causing the murder of Palanivel stabbed him also with the knife indiscriminately on his chest, stomach, left shoulder back and head and he died there itself due to injuries to vital organs hear:, lungs and brain and as a result of shock and Haemorrahage. Hence the accused also with the such intention of causing the murder of Palanivel stabbed him also with the knife indiscriminately on his chest, stomach, left shoulder back and head and he died there itself due to injuries to vital organs hear:, lungs and brain and as a result of shock and Haemorrahage. Thereby the accused had committed an offence and rendered himself liable to be punished under Sec. 302, I.P.C. (2 Counts) and Sec.3(2)(V) of the S.C. and S.T. Act.” 3. The Petitioner questioned the correctness of the charge under Sec.3(2)(V) of S.C. & S.T. Prevention of Atrocities) Act before the Second Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thanjavur who held that the petitioner committed offence against the deceased persons fully knowing well that they belonged to the Scheduled Caste and therefore charge under Sec.3(2)(V) of the Act would arise. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Second Additional District and Sessions Judge, the accused-petitioner had preferred the instant Criminal Revision. 4. Heard both the sides. Sec.3(2)(V) of the Act recites as under: “3. Punishments/or offences of attrocities- (1)............ (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 Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member, shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine.” 5. I have very carefully perused the charges and also the 161 statement of the eye-witnesses, namely, Srinivasan, Anandaraj and Maria Louis. All of them had stated that because of some dispute in playing cards, the accused stabbed the other two persons. None had stated that the accused attacked the deceased, because they belonged to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe i.e. with an intention of attacking a person belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. 6. All of them had stated that because of some dispute in playing cards, the accused stabbed the other two persons. None had stated that the accused attacked the deceased, because they belonged to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe i.e. with an intention of attacking a person belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the decision reported in Abdul Gafarsab v. State of Karnataka, (1998) Crl.L.J. 2488, where a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court had occasion to deal with this aspect, The Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court expressed the following view: “...merely because it has come on record that the deceased belonged to the Scheduled Caste, that this is no ground on which the accused can be convicted for an offence under this Act unless it is demonstrated that he has by his conduct said or done something that is directed to offend the sensibilities of the deceased in relation to the caste to which he belonged. The submission is that a scrutiny of the evidence will indicate that irrespective of what the evidence may establish with regard to the main charge, that there is no material to sustain the conviction under the subsidiary head. On a careful scrutiny of the record, we are in agreement with this submission as there is no justification for holding that the accused has committed any offence under the S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989,”.... 7. In a still recent decision, reported in Referring Officer v. Police Station, Khammam, (1999) Crl.L.J. 4173, a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court has looked at the proposition from a different angle, in that it laid stress upon the quantum of sentence to be imposed as per Sec.3(2)(v) of the Act. The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that Sec.3(2)(v) of the Act envisages enhanced punishment and that in cases where the offences punishable with imprisonment of ten years or more are committed against a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe on the ground that such person is a member of that particular community, then instead of ten years or more, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine. The Andhra Pradesh High Court pointed out that the Section provides enhanced punishment and when the punishment under Sec.302 prescribed by law itself is for death or imprisonment for life, addition of charge under Sec.3(2)(v) of the Act would be redundant. 8. I am in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court. It cannot be said that when a person is punishable with death sentence being one coming under the class of punishment for a term of ten years or more, then instead of death sentence, the life sentence should be imposed. That would frustrate the very purpose of the provision, when the accused is charged of an offence under Sec.302, I.P.C. (2 counts). If the charge is proved, the sentence that can be imposed on him is either death sentence or life sentence. When that is the case, it cannot be said that provision of Sec.3(2)(v) of the Act would arise. In fact the Andhra Pradesh High Court has pointed out in Referring Officer v. Police Station, Khammam, (1999) Crl. L.J. 4173 stated supra as follows: “The object of the provisions under Sec.3(2)(v) is to provide for enhanced punishment in regard to offences punishable under I.P.C. with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more, if such offence is committed on the ground that the victim is a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Where the punishment of not less than imprisonment for life and high sentence i.e. death sentence is provided for in respect of offences such as the one under Sec.302, I.P.C. the question of applying clause (v) of Sec.3(2) does not arise.” 9. I hold that the no charge under Sec.3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, would arise and the learned Second Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thanjavur would avoid framing of charge under Sec.3(2)(v) of the Act at the time of framing of charges. This Crl.R.C. is ordered accordingly. Consequently, connected Crl.M.Ps. are closed.