'Bhangi', 'Neech', 'Bhikhari', 'Mangani', Not Caste Names: Rajasthan High Court Drops Charges Under SC/ST Act

The Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court dropped charges under the SC/ST Act against four men accused of using words like 'Bhangi', 'Neech', 'Bhikhari', 'Mangani' while addressing certain individuals, ruling that these words were not caste names and neither was there an allegation that the four men knew the castes of the latter.

In doing so the court also observed that the police after the investigation had not found the allegation as true. The court however said that criminal prosecution for allegedly obstructing public servants discharging their public duty would go on.

A single bench of Justice Birendra Kumar was hearing an appeal filed by the four men–appellants, challenging the charges framed against them under the SC/ST Act for allegedly abusing the respondents using these words when the latter along with other public servants, had gone to identify the encroachments area on the public land made by the appellants.

It was the case of the appellants that there was "no iota of evidence" about them having knowledge about the caste of the respondents (an informant and others). It was contended that there was no material that the incident took place in the public view and only the prosecution party were witnesses. Furthermore, it was argued that the abuses were hurled not with an intention to humiliate the respondent but for unfair measurements that were used to decide the encroachments allegedly made by the appellants.

The counsel for the respondents including the private respondent submitted that meticulous appreciation of evidence at the stage of framing of charge is not permissible. It was argued that considerations at both the stages i.e. taking of cognizance and framing of charge are the same, i.e. prima facie cognizable offences are disclosed on bare perusal of the material collected during investigation. The parameters at the conclusion of trial cannot be applied at this stage, it was added.

The court meanwhile said, "In the case on hand as referred above, the words used were not caste name nor there is allegation that the petitioners were known to the caste of the public servants, who had gone to remove the encroachments. Moreover, it is crystal clear on bare perusal of allegation that the petitioners were not intending to humiliate the...persons for the reason that they were members of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes rather act of the petitioners was in protest against the action of measurements being wrongly done by the public servants".

The Court also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Ramesh Chandra Vaishya v State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. in which the incident was only witnessed by the complainant and his family and no other member of the public at the place of occurrence. The high court thereafter said that in the present case too, the informant and the officials were the only witnesses to the incident and no independent witness had turned up to support the allegations.

"The Police after investigation, did not find the allegation true, hence evidently, the offence under Section 3(1)(X) of the Act of 1989 is not made out and the petitioners deserve discharge for the aforesaid offence," the high court said.

It however observed that there is "prima facie" allegation that the appellants obstructed in the official discharge of public duty by the respondent. It thereafter said that for this "criminal prosecution would go on".

Accordingly, the appeal was partly allowed dropping the charges under the SC/ST Act while retaining the criminal prosecution for obstructing discharge of public duty.

Title: Achal Singh & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 340

Click Here To Read/Download Order