ORDER : The petition on hand is filed by the sole accused in S.C No.663/2017 pending on the files of Court of Sessions, Alappuzha that arose from Crime No.148/2017 of Harippad Police Station, Alappuzha District. The offences allegedly involved are punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the I.P.C') and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, 'the SC/ST (PA) Act'). 2. The prayer in the application is to delete Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (PA) Act from Annexure-A1 Final Report/Charge sheet, based on which Court of Sessions, Alappuzha has registered S.C No.663/2017 on its file. The allegation of the prosecution was that at 5.30 pm on 24.01.2017 due to previous animosity against one Mr. Ullas, aged 28 years and with intention to do him away, the petitioner inflicted stab injuries on his chest, hands, legs, abdomen and other parts of his body using a knife, infront of Saji Bhavan situated in Karuvatta Thekku Muri, Kumarapuram Village, intentionally and knowingly that by such acts, death of that person would be resulted. Consequently, the victim succumbed to injuries on 31.01.2017 at 5.25 pm. For the reason that the person murdered is a member of Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes, FIR was registered incorporating the offence under Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST (PA) Act. Investigation was commenced based on the allegations in the FIR and culminated in the filing of a final report, chargesheeting the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST (PA) Act. From the aforesaid chargesheet that the offence under Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST (PA) Act is now sought to be deleted. 3. The argument of Sri.I.R Prem Navaz, the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the ingredients of the offence under Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST (PA) Act are not attracted from the allegations made by the prosecution in Annexure-A1. It is contended by the learned counsel, to constitute an offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST (PA) Act, though the word used therein is 'knowingly', it is inherent that the alleged act must have been committed against the victim for the reason that the victim is a member of SC/ST. According to him, an allegation that the act was done to the victim for the reason of being a member of SC/ST must be there to attract the offence. According to him, an allegation that the act was done to the victim for the reason of being a member of SC/ST must be there to attract the offence. The learned counsel has also invited the attention of this Court to clause (i) of Section 3(1)(w) to submit that the word 'intentionally' is incorporated therein and therefore, Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST (PA) Act, must also be read as if the word 'intentionally' is there. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor has filed a statement in the Crl.M.C. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the allegations contained in Annexure-A1 final report against the petitioner are sufficient to attract the offence alleged against him under Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST (PA) Act. According to him, Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST (PA) Act is clear and unambiguous and therefore knowledge or awareness of the alleged culprit that the victim is a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe itself is sufficient to constitute that offence. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, absolutely no basis is there for the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that for an offence to be attracted, an allegation that the act was committed against the victim intentionally for the reason of himself being a member of SC/ST. 5. For having an idea about the allegations levelled by the prosecution against the petitioner, the relevant part of Annexure-A1 is extracted hereunder: xxx xxx xxx 6. Based on the allegations contained in Annexure-A1, Annexure-A2 was framed by Court of Sessions, Alappuzha. The relevant part of Annexure-A2, framing charges against the petitioner for the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (PA) Act is extracted hereunder: “(b) Secondly, on 24/1/2017 at about 5.30 p.m., you, a member of forward caste (not belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe) due to previous animosity to Ullas, aged 28 years, son of Uthaman, Thundukalathil veedu, the relative of the defacto complainant, who belongs to Hindu-Pulaya community, a Scheduled Caste, with intention to do away him, caused stab injuries by using a knife on the chest, hands, legs, abdomen and other parts of his body in front of Saji Bhavanam situated in Karuvatta Thekku Muri, Kumarapuram village. Consequent to the above injuries on 31/1/2017 at about 5.25 pm., Ullas died. Thus, you have committed offence of murder knowing that the above said Ullas is a member of Scheduled Caste community. Consequent to the above injuries on 31/1/2017 at about 5.25 pm., Ullas died. Thus, you have committed offence of murder knowing that the above said Ullas is a member of Scheduled Caste community. Thus, you have committed offence u/s.302 IPC punishable with imprisonment for life and thereby committed offence u/s.3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as amended 2016.” 7. To see whether the allegations in Annexure-A1 and A2 are adequate to attract the offence under Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST (PA) Act, it is apposite to have an understanding of the ingredients constituting the said offence. A glance at the provision which makes it an offence and provides for its punishment being relevant in the context, is extracted hereunder: “(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 [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;.” 8. Offenses punishable under IPC with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more, if committed by one against a person or against the property of such a person knowingly that he is a member of SC/ST is made punishable under Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST (PA) Act with imprisonment for life and with fine. There is no scope for any dispute to arise that the term of punishment provided for an offence under Section 302 IPC fits within the purview of punishment contemplated under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PA) Act. The offence under Section 302 IPC being punishable with death or imprisonment for life and fine, if committed by a non-member of SC/ST against a member of SC/ST, will be punishable under the provision. Then the question that requires consideration is whether the petitioner in the case on hand has committed the offence of murder with his knowledge that the victim was a member of SC/ST. 9. In Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (PA) Act, the word found is 'knowingly'. The word 'intention' does not find a place. If the legislature had intended 'intention' as an ingredient of the offence, the word must have been incorporated in the provision. The wordings of the provision is such that it cannot be read as if intention is inherent. 9. In Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (PA) Act, the word found is 'knowingly'. The word 'intention' does not find a place. If the legislature had intended 'intention' as an ingredient of the offence, the word must have been incorporated in the provision. The wordings of the provision is such that it cannot be read as if intention is inherent. If that be done, it would be against the legislative intent. The word found in the provision being 'knowingly', an allegation about the assailant's knowledge or awareness that the victim is a member of SC/ST at the time of commission of the atrocity described under the provision must be there. Without the element of knowledge being incorporated in the allegations, the offence is unlikely to be attracted. If intention was an integral part of the provision, the word must not have been omitted to be incorporated in the provision, rather it must have been incorporated as in clause (i) of Section 3 (1)(w) to which this Court's attention was invited by the learned counsel while advancing arguments. 10. It is true that SC/ST (PA) Act was enacted for the purpose of preventing commission of offences of atrocities against the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, to provide for special courts and the exclusive special courts for the trial of such offences and for the relief and rehabilitation of the victims of such offences and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The Act has defined the offences of atrocities against victims, who belong to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes under Section 3 of Chapter II. The offences involving atrocities against victims who are members of SC/ST alone are made punishable under the Act. The offences are described specifically under each of the provisions and the ingredients constituting each of the offences are also precisely dealt with. The offence attracted against the petitioners under the SC/ST (PA) Act in the case on hand is one punishable under Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST (PA) Act. In the context, it is relevant to extract Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST (PA) Act hereunder: 3. The offence attracted against the petitioners under the SC/ST (PA) Act in the case on hand is one punishable under Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST (PA) Act. In the context, it is relevant to extract Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST (PA) Act hereunder: 3. Punishments for offences of atrocities- (2) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,- (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 [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” 11. It is envisaged thereunder that when a person who does not belong to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe or belongs to any caste higher than SC/ST, commits any offence under IPC punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more against a person or against the property of a person knowingly that he belongs to that caste or tribe, that act is punishable with imprisonment for life and fine. 12. Section 3(1)(w) (i) is extracted hereunder: “3. Punishments for offences of atrocities- (w)(i) intentionally touches a woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, knowing that she belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, when such act of touching is of a sexual nature and is without the recipient's consent;” (emphasis supplied) 13. In Sub-clause (i) of Clause (w) of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 drawn to the attention of this Court by the learned counsel during the course of argument, the words 'intentionally and knowing' are incorporated. Since the words intentionally and knowing find a place in the provision, the legislative intention that can safely be gathered was that the culprit must only be punished under the provision, on the prosecution successfully establishing that the act to molest the victim was committed with intention, without her consent and with the knowledge that she belongs to SC/ST and for the reason of herself being so. It is clear from a reading of the above Section, for such an offence to be attracted, the act referred to must have been committed with the knowledge of the caste of the woman and with intention to commit the same for herself being such a member. It is clear from a reading of the above Section, for such an offence to be attracted, the act referred to must have been committed with the knowledge of the caste of the woman and with intention to commit the same for herself being such a member. Intention of the legislature being so, both the words “intentionally and knowing” were incorporated therein. Whereas, the word 'intentionally' being specifically omitted from Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST (PA) Act, the legislative intention is clear was that 'intention' is not an element to constitute the offence and an argument to read it otherwise will only be against the spirit and purpose of the SC/ST (PA) Act. 14. It is gathered from Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST (PA) Act that an offence liable to be sentenced with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more must be committed by the culprit against a person or the property of such person, who within his knowledge is a member of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe. 15. The allegations in Annexure A1 extracted supra have to be read in the above background to see whether those take in, the ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST (PA) Act. The offence allegedly committed being murder punishable under Section 302 IPC, which when successfully established, the culprit is liable to be sentenced with imprisonment for ten years or more. The allegation that the petitioner has inflicted fatal injuries on him/her with intention to cause death are there both in Annexures-A1 and A2. Therefore, the first part of the offence under Section 3(2)(v) is prima facie attracted from the allegations. 16. It is derived from Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST (PA) Act, describing the offence that knowledge or awareness of the culprit that the victim is a member of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe is a mandatory requirement to attract the offence. Since prior acquaintance of the petitioner with the victim is evident from the allegations, his knowledge about the caste of the victim can be gathered, without any specific allegation being incorporated in that regard. Since prior acquaintance of the petitioner with the victim is evident from the allegations, his knowledge about the caste of the victim can be gathered, without any specific allegation being incorporated in that regard. The argument of the learned counsel that the offence was committed by a non-member of SC/ST, against a member of SC/ST or his property intentionally for the reason of being a member of such Caste or Tribe or the property being owned and possessed by such a member is out of focus of the legislature while incorporating Section 3(2)(v) in the SC/ST (PA) Act. The proposed interpretation of the provision if accepted, that undoubtedly works sheer injustice and defeat the very purpose for which SC/ST (PA) Act was enacted. 17. The word particularly in usage in the provision being knowledge, an argument that intention is inherent therein and without any allegations indicative of intention being incorporated in Annexures A1 and A2, there is every basis for the proceedings proposed to be initiated to be put an end to is devoid of merits and therefore, is repelled. 18. In this connection, it is trite to note that Section 3(2) (v) as it now stands in the SC/ST (PA) Act is the provision as amended by the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2016 (Act 1 of 2016) with effect from 26.01.2016. The provision as available in the SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989 originally was: “(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 a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member, shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine;” 19. By the amendment, the words “on the ground that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member” had now been replaced/substituted by “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”. 20. Therefore, the position canvassed by the learned counsel was there when Section 3(2)(v) was originally brought into SC/ST(PA) Act. 20. Therefore, the position canvassed by the learned counsel was there when Section 3(2)(v) was originally brought into SC/ST(PA) Act. As the provisions available prior to amendment, for an offence under Section 3(2)(v) to be attracted, the offence under the IPC liable to be punished for a term of ten years or more must have been committed by a person other than a member of a SC/ST against another for the reason strictly of the latter belonging to SC/ST. Therefore, the element of intention was inherent therein. But, for an offence under Section 3(2)(v) as it now stands to be attracted, the person who is not a member of a SC/ST must commit an offence under IPC liable to be sentenced with punishment contemplated by the provision against a person who belongs to SC/ST or his property with the knowledge that he is a member of such caste or community. Therefore, the legislature in its wisdom has substituted the original words in the provisions to make it clear that knowledge of the person allegedly committing the offence that the victim of the offence belongs to SC/ST alone is sufficient at present to attract the offence. 21. The allegations in Annexure A1 are prima facie sufficient for the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST(PA) Act to be attracted and Annexure A2 having been framed on its basis, the relief sought by the petitioner in the petition on hand is not liable to be granted. For the foregoing reasons, Crl.M.C is dismissed.