Pranav B Prem

In a recent ruling, the Bombay High Court quashed charges under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act), in a 2022 case, observing that the alleged caste-based abuse and assault did not occur in "public view." The case, involving multiple accused, arose from an incident reported in Latur district, Maharashtra.

Key Observations of the Court

A Division Bench of Justice VV Kankanwadi and Justice Rohit W Joshi noted that while the incident might have taken place in a public area, there was no material to show it occurred in the presence of the public. The Court clarified that for an act to fall under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act—provisions addressing caste-based insults and abuse—the offense must occur in "public view," requiring the presence of independent witnesses or bystanders.

"The spot of the alleged incident is a narrow lane. The incident might have occurred in a public place, but there is no evidence to indicate it happened in public view. Importantly, neither the complainant in the FIR nor in subsequent statements has alleged this," the Court stated.

Case Background

The complaint was filed by a woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste who alleged that several individuals, including the principal accused, abused her in casteist terms and physically assaulted her. The accusations stemmed from a personal dispute, where the complainant claimed she had been in a relationship with the principal accused, which ended when he became engaged to another woman. The complainant alleged that during a confrontation, the accused hurled caste-based insults and subjected her to physical violence. However, the First Information Report (FIR), filed 12 days after the alleged incident, lacked details suggesting the involvement of the public or witnesses. A supplementary statement recorded later introduced additional allegations, which the Court deemed as improvements over the original complaint.

Legal Findings and Precedents

The Court relied on earlier judgments, including the Supreme Court's ruling in Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, which established that "public view" is an essential element for invoking Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act. Mere abuse or intimidation is insufficient unless witnessed by independent persons. The Court also highlighted that the investigation did not yield statements from any third party or evidence corroborating the complainant's claims of public abuse. This absence of material evidence led the Court to conclude that the essential ingredient of "public view" was missing in this case.

Verdict

The High Court quashed the charges under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act against four of the accused while retaining charges under Sections 323, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against them. These provisions relate to causing simple hurt, intentional insult, and criminal intimidation, respectively. Additionally, charges against several other accused were fully quashed, as the Court found no substantive allegations or evidence against them.

Cause Title: Afshamaskar Laikhkan Pathan and Ors v State of Maharashtra

Case No: CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4113 OF 2022

Date: January-14-2025

Bench:  Justice VV Kankanwadi, Justice Rohit W Joshi 

[Read/Download order]