Source: The Indian Express

Introduction

The Bombay High Court recently examined a significant case involving charges under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The case centered on allegations of caste-based abuse and assault, where the court had to determine whether the alleged offences met the crucial "public view" requirement under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act. The matter involved a relationship dispute that escalated into accusations of caste-based violence and intimidation.

What was the Incident?

• A woman (the complainant) had entered into a relationship with a man who promised to marry her.
• The man later got engaged to another woman instead, breaking his promise.
• When the complainant went to meet him, she was allegedly assaulted by his relatives.
• According to her complaint, the man's relatives (sister, brother-in-law, cousin, and friend) hurled caste-based insults at her.
• The relatives also physically assaulted her during this confrontation.
• A rape case was registered against the main accused (the man who had promised marriage).
• The incident reportedly took place in a narrow lane, though there were no witnesses mentioned in the complaint.
• The complainant filed charges under both the SC/ST Act and Indian Penal Code.

What was the Court's Observation?

• The court States that "mere insult or intimidation with a view to humiliate" does not constitute an offence under the SC/ST Act - there must be additional elements present to make it prosecutable.
• While the incident need not occur in a public place, it must take place in "public view" - meaning there must be witnesses present.
• The court referenced the Supreme Court's Hitesh Verma vs State of Uttarakhand (2020) ruling, which established that the presence of independent third-party witnesses is essential to constitute an offence under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of Act.
• In examining the evidence, the court noted that neither the chargesheet nor the FIR contained statements from any witnesses who had seen the alleged incident.
• The court found that the incident occurred in a narrow lane, but there was no material evidence to prove it happened in public view.
• While quashing the SC/ST Act charges, the court maintained the IPC charges of simple hurt and criminal intimidation against four accused persons, finding "clear and consistent allegations" of beating and causing hurt.
• For some accused (the grandfather and father of the engaged woman), the court found no legally admissible evidence and dismissed all charges against them.
• The court distinguished between location and visibility - clarifying that even if an incident occurs in a public place, it must be witnessed by others to qualify under the relevant sections of the SC/ST Act.

What are the Precedents Cases Referred?

• Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand (2020) - Supreme Court ruling:
  • Established that for Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act, insults and intimidation must occur in public view
  • Required presence of third-party witnesses at the time of incident
  • Made it essential to have independent witnesses who saw the incident
• Shivalingappa B Kerakalamatti v. State of Karnataka (September 2023) - Karnataka High Court case:
  • Involved assault with a cycle chain and caste-based abuse
  • Court clarified that abuse must occur in a public place or place of public view
  • Established that merely being from a Scheduled Caste is not enough to prove offence
  • States that there must be specific intention to insult someone because of their caste
• Supreme Court ruling (December 2024):
  • Set aside charges of intentional insult under SC/ST Act
  • Ruled that a backyard of a house is not a "place within public view"
  • Further strengthened the interpretation that location alone is not sufficient - visibility to public is crucial

What are the Legal Requirements for Offenses Under Section 3 of the SC/ST Act?

• Section 3(1): 
  • General section listing offences 
  • Applies to persons who are not members of SC/ST 
  • Covers various forms of discrimination and atrocities 
• Section 3(1)(r):
  • Punishes intentional insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate
  • Must be against a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe
  • Offence must occur in a place within public view
• Section 3(1)(s):
  • Punishes abuse of SC/ST member by caste name
  • Must occur in a place within public view
  • Requires presence of witnesses

Does Caste-Based Abuse Require Public View and Witness Presence to Constitute an Offense?

• Karnataka High Court (2023) established that hurling caste-based abuses must occur in a public place or place of public view, clarifying that being from Scheduled Caste alone doesn't establish the offense - there must be clear intention to insult based on caste identity.
• Supreme Court's December 2024 ruling reinforced that even if an incident occurs in a public location (like someone's backyard), it doesn't automatically qualify as "public view" under the Act.
• The law requires not just the location to be public, but the presence of independent witnesses who actually observed the incident for it to constitute an offense under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s).
• There must be documentary evidence (either in FIR, chargesheet, or witness statements) establishing that the incident occurred in public view with witnesses present.
• The courts have consistently distinguished between "public place" and "public view," providing that the mere occurrence of an incident in a public space is insufficient without witnessed observation.

Conclusion

The court's ruling reaffirms the established legal principle that for offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, the presence of third-party witnesses is essential to establish the "public view" requirement. While the court quashed the SC/ST Act charges due to lack of evidence regarding public view, it maintained other criminal charges under the IPC, demonstrating that alleged victims still have recourse through alternative legal provisions even when specific requirements of the SC/ST Act are not met.