By PTI
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court said on Friday it is desirable that utterances made by an accused within public view are outlined at least in the charge sheet before the person is subjected to trial under a provision of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The top court observed it will enable courts to ascertain whether the charge sheet makes out a case under the SC/ST Act, prior to taking cognisance of the offence.
The apex court was dealing with a matter in which a person was charge-sheeted for alleged offences, including under section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act which deals with intentional insults or intimidation with the intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view.
A bench of Justices S R Bhat and Dipankar Datta said the legislative intent seems to be clear that every insult or intimidation for humiliation to a person would not amount to an offence under section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act unless such insult or intimidation is targeted at the victim because of the person being a member of a particular Scheduled Caste or Tribe.
“If one calls another ‘bewaqoof’ (idiot) or ‘murkh’ (fool) or ‘chor’ (thief) in any place within public view, this would obviously constitute an act intended to insult or humiliate by user of abusive or offensive language.
Even if the same be directed generally to a person, who happens to be a Scheduled Caste or Tribe, per se, it may not be sufficient to attract section 3(1)(x) unless such words are laced with casteist remarks,” the bench said.
It noted that section 18 of the SC/ST Act bars invocation of the court’s jurisdiction under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which deals with direction for grant of bail to a person apprehending arrest, and the law has overriding effect over other legislations.
It is desirable that before an accused is subjected to a trial for alleged commission of an offence under section 3(1)(x), the utterances made by him in any place within public view are outlined, if not in the FIR (which is not required to be an encyclopaedia of all facts and events), but at least in the charge sheet.” This needs to be done, so as to enable the court to ascertain whether the charge sheet makes out a case of an offence under the SC/ST Act having been committed for forming a proper opinion in the conspectus of the situation before it, prior to taking cognisance of the offence,” the bench said.
The apex court, which quashed the criminal proceedings against the accused, noted neither the FIR nor the charge sheet filed against him referred to the presence of a member of the public at the place of occurrence apart from the accused, the complainant and his two family members.
It said since the utterances, if any, made by the appellant were not “in any place within public view”, the basic ingredient for attracting section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act was missing or absent.
The bench noted the FIR and the charge sheet made no reference to the utterances of the appellant during the course of verbal altercation or to the caste to which the complainant belonged, except for the allegation that caste-related abuses were hurled.
The apex court was dealing with an appeal against the May last year verdict of the Allahabad High Court which had dismissed an application under section 482 of the CrPC seeking quashing of the charge sheet and the pending criminal proceedings against the appellant.
It noted that as per the prosecution’s case, in January 2016, the appellant got engaged in an altercation with the complainant over drainage of water and it was alleged that the appellant had verbally hurled caste-related abuses towards the complainant and his family members and also assaulted him.
The bench noted an FIR was lodged against the appellant, and upon investigation, which was completed within a day, the investigating officer filed a charge sheet for the alleged offences under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act.
The appellant had approached the high court seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings on the grounds that the charge sheet disclosed no offence and the prosecution was instituted with mala fide intention for harassment.
“Completion of investigation within a day in a given case could be appreciated but in the present case it has resulted in more disservice than service to the cause of justice,” the bench said while setting aside the high court order.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court said on Friday it is desirable that utterances made by an accused within public view are outlined at least in the charge sheet before the person is subjected to trial under a provision of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The top court observed it will enable courts to ascertain whether the charge sheet makes out a case under the SC/ST Act, prior to taking cognisance of the offence.
The apex court was dealing with a matter in which a person was charge-sheeted for alleged offences, including under section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act which deals with intentional insults or intimidation with the intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view.googletag.cmd.push(function() {googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); });
A bench of Justices S R Bhat and Dipankar Datta said the legislative intent seems to be clear that every insult or intimidation for humiliation to a person would not amount to an offence under section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act unless such insult or intimidation is targeted at the victim because of the person being a member of a particular Scheduled Caste or Tribe.
“If one calls another ‘bewaqoof’ (idiot) or ‘murkh’ (fool) or ‘chor’ (thief) in any place within public view, this would obviously constitute an act intended to insult or humiliate by user of abusive or offensive language.
Even if the same be directed generally to a person, who happens to be a Scheduled Caste or Tribe, per se, it may not be sufficient to attract section 3(1)(x) unless such words are laced with casteist remarks,” the bench said.
It noted that section 18 of the SC/ST Act bars invocation of the court’s jurisdiction under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which deals with direction for grant of bail to a person apprehending arrest, and the law has overriding effect over other legislations.
It is desirable that before an accused is subjected to a trial for alleged commission of an offence under section 3(1)(x), the utterances made by him in any place within public view are outlined, if not in the FIR (which is not required to be an encyclopaedia of all facts and events), but at least in the charge sheet.” This needs to be done, so as to enable the court to ascertain whether the charge sheet makes out a case of an offence under the SC/ST Act having been committed for forming a proper opinion in the conspectus of the situation before it, prior to taking cognisance of the offence,” the bench said.
The apex court, which quashed the criminal proceedings against the accused, noted neither the FIR nor the charge sheet filed against him referred to the presence of a member of the public at the place of occurrence apart from the accused, the complainant and his two family members.
It said since the utterances, if any, made by the appellant were not “in any place within public view”, the basic ingredient for attracting section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act was missing or absent.
The bench noted the FIR and the charge sheet made no reference to the utterances of the appellant during the course of verbal altercation or to the caste to which the complainant belonged, except for the allegation that caste-related abuses were hurled.
The apex court was dealing with an appeal against the May last year verdict of the Allahabad High Court which had dismissed an application under section 482 of the CrPC seeking quashing of the charge sheet and the pending criminal proceedings against the appellant.
It noted that as per the prosecution’s case, in January 2016, the appellant got engaged in an altercation with the complainant over drainage of water and it was alleged that the appellant had verbally hurled caste-related abuses towards the complainant and his family members and also assaulted him.
The bench noted an FIR was lodged against the appellant, and upon investigation, which was completed within a day, the investigating officer filed a charge sheet for the alleged offences under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act.
The appellant had approached the high court seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings on the grounds that the charge sheet disclosed no offence and the prosecution was instituted with mala fide intention for harassment.
“Completion of investigation within a day in a given case could be appreciated but in the present case it has resulted in more disservice than service to the cause of justice,” the bench said while setting aside the high court order.
