Hitesh Verma vs The State of Uttarakhand & another. Criminal Appeal 707 of 2020 decided on 5 November 2020. Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Justice Hemant Gupta, Justice Ajay Rastogi
Judgment Link: https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2020/16256/16256_2020_35_1503_24580_Judgement_05-Nov-2020.pdf
Relevant Paragraphs: 9. The long title of the Act is to prevent the commission of offences of atrocities against the members of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes, to provide for Special Courts and 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.
10. The Act was enacted to improve the social economic conditions of
the vulnerable sections of the society as they have been subjected
to various offences such as indignities, humiliations and
harassment. They have been deprived of life and property as well.
The object of the Act is thus to punish the violators who inflict
indignities, humiliations and harassment and commit the offence
as defined under Section 3 of the Act. The Act is thus intended to
punish the acts of the upper caste against the vulnerable section of
the society for the reason that they belong to a particular
community.
11. The basic ingredients of the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act
can be classified as “1) intentionally insults or intimidates with
intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled
Tribe and 2) in any place within public view. ”
12. All insults or intimidations to a person will not be an offence under
the Act unless such insult or intimidation is on account of victim
belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The object of the
Act is to improve the socio-economic conditions of the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes as they are denied number of civil
rights. Thus, an offence under the Act would be made out when a
member of the vulnerable section of the Society is subjected to
indignities, humiliations and harassment. The assertion of title over
the land by either of the parties is not due to either the indignities,
humiliations or harassment. Every citizen has a right to avail their
remedies in accordance with law. Therefore, if the appellant or his
family members have invoked jurisdiction of the civil court, or that
respondent No.2 has invoked the jurisdiction of the civil court, then
the parties are availing their remedies in accordance with the
procedure established by law. Such action is not for the reason that
respondent No.2 is member of Scheduled Caste.
13. Another key ingredient of the provision is insult or intimidation in
“any place within public view”. What is to be regarded as “place in
public view” had come up for consideration before this Court in the
judgment reported as Swaran Singh & Ors. v. State through
Standing Counsel & Ors (2008) 8 SCC 435. The Court had drawn distinction
between the expression “public place” and “in any place within
public view”. It was held that if an offence is committed outside the
building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, then
the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. On the
contrary, if the remark is made inside a building, but some
members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends)
then it would not be an offence since it is not in the public view.
17. In another judgment reported as Khuman Singh v. State of
Madhya Pradesh 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1104, this Court held that in a case for applicability of Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, the fact that the deceased belonged
to Scheduled Caste would not be enough to inflict enhance
punishment. This Court held that there was nothing to suggest
that the offence was committed by the appellant only because the
deceased belonged to Scheduled Caste.
18. Therefore, offence under the Act is not established merely on the fact that the informant is a member of Scheduled Caste unless there is an intention to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for the reason that the victim belongs to such caste.
23. This Court in a judgment reported as Ishwar Pratap Singh & Ors.
v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr (2018) 13 SCC 612 held that there is no
prohibition under the law for quashing the charge-sheet in part. In
a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court is
required to examine as to whether its intervention is required for
prevention of abuse of process of law or otherwise to secure the
ends of justice.
Compiled by S. Basavaraj, Advocate, Daksha Legal
Daksha Legal 