The Kerala High Court granted pre-arrest bail to an accused in a caste-based abuse case, determining that the term used, while abusive, did not qualify as a casteist slur under the SC/ST Act. The court emphasized that the incident arose from a personal dispute, lacking the intent to insult based on caste identity.
Kerala: The Kerala High Court granted pre-arrest bail to a man accused of caste-based abuse, ruling that the term used by the accused, which translates to “son of a prostitute” in Malayalam, does not qualify as a casteist slur under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act).
The case was heard by Justice C.S. Sudha, who noted that while the term was undoubtedly abusive, it lacked the caste-specific intent required to invoke the provisions of the SC/ST Act. The court clarified:
“An offence under the Act is not established merely on the fact that the informant is a member of the 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.”
Read Also: Supreme Court Grants Notional Promotion to Three Officers in Jharkhand Judicial Service
The case arose from an altercation on November 12, 2024, in Perumbavoor. The informant, a member of the Pulaya community, alleged that he and his brother-in-law, Abiraj, were verbally and physically attacked by three individuals.
- The conflict reportedly stemmed from an earlier dispute where the first accused had damaged Abiraj’s motorcycle.
- On the day of the incident, the second accused allegedly trespassed onto the informant’s property, verbally abused them, and physically assaulted them.
- The third accused purportedly used the offensive term during the altercation, which the informant claimed was a caste-based insult.
- The confrontation escalated, with one of the accused attacking Abiraj with a pair of scissors, causing serious injuries.
A case was registered, invoking Sections 3(1)(r) and (s) of the SC/ST Act, along with charges of trespass, voluntarily causing hurt, and grievous hurt under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The trial court had earlier denied pre-arrest bail, citing the statutory bar under Sections 18 and 18A of the SC/ST Act, which restrict bail in cases under the Act. However, the third accused challenged this decision in the High Court.
The defense argued that:
- The remarks made lacked casteist connotation and were unrelated to the victim’s caste identity.
- The dispute originated from a personal grievance over property and the damaged motorcycle.
The court agreed, stating:
“The offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act would indicate the ingredients of intentional insult and intimidation with an intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. All insults or intimidation to a person will not be an offence under the Act unless such insult or intimidation is on account of the victim belonging to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.”
The court referred to precedents like Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand and Khuman Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, emphasizing that disputes unrelated to caste identity cannot automatically invoke the SC/ST Act.
Further, the court highlighted:
- The incident stemmed from a personal dispute over Abiraj’s vehicle, not the victims’ caste.
- The alleged insult did not occur in “public view,” a requirement under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act.
The court concluded that the allegations did not prima facie support the charges under the SC/ST Act. It also determined that custodial interrogation of the accused was unnecessary and granted him pre-arrest bail.
However, the court clarified that its observations were limited to the bail proceedings and would not influence the trial.
Cause Title: Sarath K.S v State of Kerala [CRL.A NO. 2385 OF 2024]
Read the Judgement here:
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
