Caste-Based Insult In Backyard Of Private House Not "Within Public View", No Offence Under S.3 SC/ST Act : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently held that alleged caste-based insult or intimidation that occurred in the backyard of a private house does not qualify as being “within public view” under Section 3 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh discharged a man from the charges alleged against him under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 observing –

“The place of occurrence of the alleged offence was at the backyard of the appellant's house. Backyard of a private house cannot be within the public view. The persons who accompanied the second respondent (complainant) were also the employees or the labour force she had engaged for the purpose of carrying out repairs to her house which is adjacent to the appellant's house. They cannot also be termed as public in general.”

The Court set aside the order dated November 13, 2019, passed by the Orissa High Court upholding the rejection of the appellant's discharge application.

The appellant faced allegations under Sections 294 and 506 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(x) (intentional insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (prior to its amendment on January 26, 2016). The second respondent-complainant, a member of a Scheduled Caste, alleged that the appellant had insulted and intimidated her with the intent to humiliate her in the backyard of the appellant's house.

The complainant, accompanied by her employees for repairs to her adjacent house, had entered the appellant's backyard without prior permission. The appellant objected to the entry, and spoke the allegedly insulting or intimidating words.

The appellant filed an application under Section 239 CrPC seeking discharge on the ground that the alleged acts did not satisfy the requirements of “public view” under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. The application was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar, prompting the appellant to move the High Court. The High Court, however, sustained the rejection, leading to the present appeal.

The appellant argued that the alleged incident occurred in the backyard of his private house, a location that does not qualify as “public view” under the SC/ST Act. The backyard was accessed by the complainant and her employees without permission to carry out plastering work on the complainant's adjacent house.

He cited the Supreme Court's decision in Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand and highlighted a pending civil dispute between his wife and the complainant's family, asserting that the charges against him are not made out.

The State contended that the trial was at an advanced stage, with three out of six witnesses already examined, and urged the court not to interfere at this stage.

The complainant contended that the appellant's alleged actions were motivated by caste-based discrimination and fell squarely within the ambit of Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act.

The Supreme Court concluded that:

1. The backyard of a private house cannot be considered a place within “public view.”
2. The individuals present during the incident, primarily the complainant's employees, cannot be categorized as “public in general.”

The Court also referred to its earlier judgment in Hitesh Verma, noting that civil disputes over property do not automatically constitute an offence under the SC/ST Act unless there is caste-based abuse or harassment. In this case, the Court determined the allegations did not establish such abuse.

The Supreme Court set aside both the High Court's order dated November 13, 2019, and the Additional Sessions Judge's order dated August 2, 2019. The appellant was discharged from all charges under the SC/ST Act and IPC.

Case no. – SLP (Crl.) No.1608/2020

Case Title – Rabindra Kumar Chhatoi v. State of Odisha & Anr.

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 975