SC/ST Act | Offence Will Not Be Constituted If Casteist Remark Is Made Within Four Walls: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that all the insults or intimidation to person would not be an offence under the SC&ST Act, unless such remark is made within public view or at any public place.

Justice Deepak Gupta observed that to constitute an offence under the Act, the insults or intimidation should be on account of victim belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and further "another important key ingredient of provisions is that the insult or intimidation should be in any place within public view."

The Court further referred to Apex Court's decision in Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand (2021), in which the allegations of abusing informant were within four walls of building. There was no other member of public at the time of incident and it was held that the basic ingredient that words were uttered “in any place within public view” were not made out. Charge-sheet to that extent was quashed by the Court.

Justice Gupta added that "the ingredients to attract Section 3(1)(s) are: -

(i) accused does not belong to Scheduled Caste/Schedules Tribe; whereas the concerned person against whom offence is committed, belongs to Scheduled Caste/Schedules Tribe.

(ii) accused abusing member of SC/ST by caste name

(iii) in any public place;

(iv) within public view."

The bench was seized with an appeal against the order of Special Judge, Ludhiana whereby plea of anticipatory bail in a murder case and offence for passing casteist remark under Sections 302, 307, 323 of the IPC, 1860 and Sections 3 & 4 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989, was rejected.

It was alleged that the appellant had passed casteist remark to one Sewak Singh by saying what was his "aukaat" to buy a banquet hall and thereafter, the appellant's husband caused serious injuries by hitting Singh with his car, resulting in his demise.

It was argued by the counsel for the petitioner that no role is attributed to her in the FIR. Entire allegations are against the husband of the appellant, who has already been arrested.

Considering the submissions the Court referred to Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, (2020), in which it has been held by the  Supreme Court that object of the Act is to punish violators, who inflict indignities, humiliations and harassment against the vulnerable section of the society and thus, the Act is intended to punish acts of upper caste against vulnerable section of society for reason that they belong to a particular community.

The Court further clarified that no doubt that Section 18 & 18A & SC & ST Act, provides that provisions of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall not apply in relation to any case involving the arrest of any person on an accusation of having committed an offence under the SC & ST, Act but the Court is not debarred from considering as to whether, from the accusations made, prima facie offence under Section SC/ST, Act is made out or not.

It observed that in the present case, the only attribution against the appellant is that she uttered the words as to what was the status of complainant to purchase the Banquet Hall and used casteist words against him.

"The said occurrence took place in the Banquet Hall, when only the complainant party; appellant and her family members were present i.e., not within another public view. The question arises as to whether in such circumstances, any of the provision of Section 3 or 4 of SC/ST Act are attracted," noted the Court.

Perusing, Section 3(1) of SC & ST Act, 1989 the Court highlighted that one of the necessary ingredients to make a person liable for punishment for offence atrocities, the remark must be "...in any public place; within public view."

The Court observed that in the present case, the perusal of the FIR reveals that there is no allegation that accused Rajinder Kaur i.e., appellant knew that Sewak Singh- complainant- deceased belonged to Scheduled Caste. Besides, no particular caste has been uttered by the appellant so as to insult or humiliate the complainant. Allegations are to have been used casteist words, without specifying as to what words were used.

"No particular caste has been disclosed. Even otherwise, the alleged casteist words were uttered in Banquet Hall i.e. not in any place within the public view," it added.

In the light of the above the Court granted the relief and directed that bail shall be granted bail in the event of her arrest subject to certain condition.

Appearance: Tanvir Singh Attariwala, Advocate for the appellant.

Randeep Singh Khaira, DAG, Punjab.

Manish Verma, Advocate for the complainant.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 228

Title: Rajinder Kaur v. State of Punjab

Click here to download/ read the order