Utterance Of Abuse By Taking Name Of Victim's Caste Not An Offence Under S 3(1)(x) SC/ST Act Unless Insult, Intimidation Intended: Orissa High Court
The Orissa High Court has reiterated that a charge under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act - as was before the 2016 amendment, shall not be attracted merely because the accused uttered the name of victim's caste, unless it is done with an intention to insult or intimidate and to humiliate him for being a member of the SC or...
The Orissa High Court has reiterated that a charge under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act - as was before the 2016 amendment, shall not be attracted merely because the accused uttered the name of victim's caste, unless it is done with an intention to insult or intimidate and to humiliate him for being a member of the SC or ST community.
Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act stands substituted by Section 3(1)(r) of the said Act with effect from January 26, 2016. The case before the high court dated back to 2012.
As per the provision, “Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in place within public view shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine.”
While quashing an order taking cognizance under the said provision, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Radha Krishna Pattanaik relied on Supreme Court's decision in Hitesh Verma Vrs. The State of Uttarakhand and Another and said:
“So having regard to the intent and purpose of the law in place meant to protect the statutory and constitutional rights of the marginalized sections of the society, any such offence committed by a person other than a SC or ST must have to have the requisite intention to insult and intimidate his counterpart for him to be from a backward class because of his caste. So it has to be held that all insults or intimidation do not make out an offence under the Act unless it is directed against the person on account of his caste.”
Background
On 6th December 2012, while labour work was in progress at a place, the petitioner is said to have assaulted the informant with a stick after his cattle got alarmed due to the noise. He also allegedly abused the informant by uttering the name of his caste.
An FIR was lodged by the informant, consequent upon which a case was registered under the alleged offences. Subsequently, a chargesheet was filed and the Sessions Court passed the impugned order, whereby it framed charges against the petitioner under Sections 294, 323 and 506, IPC and Section 3(1)(x) SC & ST (PoA) Act.
Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had approached the High Court with a prayer to quash the same.
Contentions of Parties
R.K. Mohapatra, counsel for the petitioner, contended that even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that during the alleged incident, the petitioner abused the informant by taking name of his caste, that per se does not make out an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, since intention should be to insult or intimidate a person for he being a member of Scheduled Caste (SC) or Scheduled Tribe (ST) community. He placed reliance on Hitesh Verma v. The State of Uttarakhand & Anr. to buttress his argument.
S.S. Mohapatra, Additional Standing Counsel for the State, on the other hand, argued that the Special Court did not commit any error in taking cognizance of the offences and framing charge by the impugned order as the FIR and materials furnished along with chargesheet do make out a case against the petitioner.
High Court Ruling
Justice Pattanaik said that Supreme Court in Hitesh Verma has observed that the offence under Section 3(1)(x) would bear the ingredients of insult and intimidation with an intent to humiliate a member of SC or ST community.
"All insults or intimidation would not be an offence under the Act unless such insult or intimidation is on account of the victim belonging to SC or ST since the object of the Act is to improve the socio-economic condition of such persons as they are denied number of civil rights and thus an offence under Act would be made out when a member of the vulnerable section of the society is subjected to indignities, humiliations and harassment," the court said, while referring to apex court's observations.
In the instant case, the bench noted that the petitioner suddenly abused the informant under the rage of anger after being irritated. Though the petitioner uttered the name of informant’s caste, it observed, utterances of abuse by taking the name of one’s caste would not be an offence under the Section 3(1)(x) of the Act unless the intention is to insult, intimidate the person being for him being an SC or ST.
Accordingly, it noted:
“If the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Hitesh Verma (supra) is read, appreciated and understood in its proper perspective and applied to case at hand, there appears no such intention on the part of the petitioner for being in dominant position as a man of forward class to insult and intimidate the informant being a member of SC and ST. If the victim is humiliated within public view for being SC or ST and with that intention, any overt act or mischief is committed, an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act would be made out otherwise not.”
It thus concluded, though the informant was abused at a public place and probably within a public view, it was apparently without any intention to insult, intimidate and to humiliate him.
“It was pure and simple an abuse by the petitioner under the peculiar facts and circumstances and a sudden outburst and on the spur of the moment without carrying the requisite intention to humiliate the informant so to say," said the court
Consequently, the petition was partially allowed to the extent it involved the charge under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act.
Case Title: Surendra Kumar Mishra v. State of Orissa & Anr.
Case No.: CRLMC No. 2628 of 2013
Judgment Dated: 19th December 2022
Coram: R.K. Pattanaik, J.
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mohapatra, Advocate
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Sidharth Shankar Mohapatra, Additional Standing Counsel
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 166