In a prosecution for an offence under this Chapter, if it is proved that—
(a) the accused rendered any financial assistance to a person accused of, or reasonably suspected of committing, an offence under this Chapter, the Special Court shall presume, unless the contrary is proved, that such person had abetted the offence;
(b) a group of persons committed an offence under this Chapter and if it is proved that the offence committed was a sequel to any existing dispute regarding land or any other matter, it shall be presumed that the offence was committed in furtherance of the common intention or in prosecution of the common object;
(c) the accused was having personal knowledge of the victim or his family, the Court shall presume that the accused was aware of the caste or tribal identity of the victim, unless the contrary is proved.
Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 8
Section 8 introduces critical statutory presumptions reversing the traditional burden of proof regarding knowledge and common intention in atrocity prosecutions.
Clause (c) establishes that where the complainant proves the accused had personal knowledge of the victim's family or social background, the court shall presume that the accused was fully aware that the victim belonged to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.
Section 8 dismantles the common defense plea that the perpetrator was unaware of the victim's caste. By statutorily inferring caste consciousness from social acquaintance or concerted action, the provision prevents conspirators from escaping liability behind feigned ignorance.