Rajasthan High Court: In a petition seeking to quash charges under and (SC/ST Act), a single-judge bench of Birendra Kumar, J., quashed the charges under SC/ST Act and held that to establish an offense under Section of the , the intent to humiliate based on caste must be evident, and the act must occur within public view.
In the instant matter, the petitioners were accused in FIR registered at Police Station Kotawali, Jaisalmer, for offences under Sections , read with of the and Section of the . The FIR alleged that on 31-01-2011, the complainant and other officials, during a land encroachment inspection, were abused by the petitioners with caste-based slurs like Bhangi, Neech, Bhikhari, Mangani. The police initially submitted a negative report, finding the allegations unsubstantiated. However, upon a protest petition, cognizance was taken, and charges were framed.
The petitioners contended that the allegations do not satisfy the essential elements of Section of the , as the accused lacked knowledge of the caste of the informants and the alleged incident did not occur in public view. The petitioners relied on Ramesh Chandra Vaishya v. State of U.P. and Dashrath Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh, where similar cases of insufficient evidence led to discharge.
However, the respondents contended that at the stage of framing charges, the Court only needs to determine whether there is a prima facie case and not conduct a meticulous evaluation of evidence. It was submitted that sufficient material exists to support framing charges under the SC/ST Act and IPC.
The Court stated that to invoke Section 3(1)(X) of the SC/ST Act, intentional humiliation with caste-specific knowledge and public view are crucial. The Court noted that the words used did not explicitly indicate caste-based insult, and the incident occurred during a dispute over land measurement, not motivated by caste bias. The Court found no evidence that the petitioners were aware of the complainant’s caste or that the alleged abuse was caste-based. The Court noted that absence of independent witnesses and the police’s initial negative report further weakened the prosecution’s case under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act.
The Court quashed the charges under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act and the petitioners were discharged from that offense. However, The Court upheld the charges related to obstruction of public duty and stated that the trial would proceed for these offenses.
[Achal Singh v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 2169/2023, Decided on 12-11-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Leela Dhar Khatri, Counsel for the Appellants
Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, PP, Counsel for the Respondents
Buy Penal Code, 1860
The post appeared first on .