The Supreme Court of India held that caste-based abuses inside a private residence, away from public view, would not attract offences under the SC/ST Act, ruling that alleged insults under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) must occur at “a place within public view.”
The Supreme Court of India held that caste-based abuses allegedly made inside a private residence and outside the view of the public would not constitute offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
A Bench comprising Justice NV Anjaria and Justice PK Mishra observed that the requirement that the alleged insult or intimidation occur in “‘a place within public view’” is an essential ingredient for attracting offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act.
It Said,
“in order to make out the offence under Section 3(1)(r) and/or Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, the occurrence of the incident and the act and conduct of hurling of castebased abuses must take place at “a place within public view”. It must be a place within the public gaze. Even happens to be a private place, then in such eventuality a public-eye must have an access to be able to notice what happens there or what is taking place that will only make the “place within public view”.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Charge: “Abuse Inside Home Not Within Public View”
Relying on the Karuppudayar vs. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lalgudi Trichy and Others, the Court held,
“It could thus be seen that, to be a place ‘within public view’, the place should be open where the members of the public can witness or hear the utterance made by the accused to the victim…If the alleged offence takes place within the four corners of the wall where members of the public are not present, then it cannot be said that it has taken place at a place within public view,”
Backgrounds of the Case:
The ruling came while the apex court was hearing a plea seeking quashing of a First Information Report (FIR) and criminal proceedings initiated against four members of a family in Delhi in connection with allegations of caste-based abuse and criminal intimidation arising out of a property dispute.
The dispute involved close family members. According to the case records, two of the accused as well as the complainant were brothers belonging to the Scheduled Caste community, while the remaining accused were their wives.
As per the FIR registered at Kirti Nagar Police Station in January 2021, the complainant alleged that one of the women accused, who belonged to an upper caste prior to her marriage, frequently used casteist slurs such as “chura”, “chamar”, “harijan” and “dirty drain” against him and his family members.
The complaint further stated that on January 28, 2021, the accused attempted to forcibly open the lock of the complainant’s house during an ongoing dispute concerning family-owned properties located in Hari Nagar and Ramesh Nagar in Delhi.
During the altercation, the complainant alleged that caste-based abuses were hurled at him and his wife and that threats were issued to falsely implicate him in a molestation case.
Following investigation, charges were framed against one of the accused under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act. All accused persons were additionally charged under Section 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for criminal intimidation.
The Delhi High Court had earlier declined to interfere with the trial court’s order framing charges. The High Court observed that at the stage of framing charges, courts are not expected to conduct a “mini trial” or undertake a detailed evaluation of evidence.
Observations of the Supreme Court:
Before the Supreme Court, however, the accused argued that the fundamental ingredients required to attract offences under the SC/ST Act were absent from the complaint itself.
Referring to earlier judicial precedents interpreting the phrase “within public view”, the Supreme Court reiterated that even a private location may fall within the ambit of the provision if members of the public are capable of witnessing or hearing the alleged incident.
However, the Court clarified that where the alleged abuses occur entirely within the confines of a residential house and are not visible or audible to the public, the statutory requirement of “public view” would not be satisfied.
Examining the FIR in the present case, the Bench found that the complaint nowhere stated that the alleged incident occurred in the presence of independent members of the public or at a place accessible to public view.
The Court observed
“Once that is so, to suggest that the house place was not exposed to public eye or public gaze, a residential house in no way becomes ‘a place within public view’,”
The Court further noted that allegations regarding previous instances of caste abuse over the preceding year were vague in nature and lacked specific details relating to dates, incidents or circumstances.
The Bench also found that the two witnesses referred to in the complaint were friends of the complainant and that their statements did not establish that they had actually witnessed the alleged occurrence.
Apart from the SC/ST Act charges, the Supreme Court also quashed the criminal intimidation charge under Section 506 IPC. The Court held that the allegations in the FIR did not disclose any intention to cause alarm, which is an essential ingredient required to constitute the offence of criminal intimidation.
The Court said,
“In the present case, even after closely reading the averments in the complaint, it is difficult to come to the conclusion that the appellants-accused exerted threat with an intent to cause ‘alarm’ to respondent No.2-complainant,”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the Delhi High Court judgment as well as the trial court’s order framing charges and quashed the FIR and chargesheet against the accused.
The appellants were represented by advocates Avadh Bihari Kaushik, Urvashi Bhatia, Jatin Khatri, Mukesh Saroja and Rishabh Kumar.
The respondents were represented by Additional Solicitor General Archana Pathak Dave along with advocates Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Kamal Rattan Digpaul, Harshita Choubey, Digvijay Dam and Udit Dediya.
Case Title: Gunjan @ Girija Kumari vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES