Pranav B Prem

The Kerala High Court has reiterated that for an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the act of intentional insult or humiliation must take place in a location that qualifies as “within public view.” A single-judge bench of Justice G. Girish delivered this observation while dismissing a criminal revision petition challenging the acquittal of the accused in a case filed under the SC/ST Act.

Case Background

The revision petition was filed by the de facto complainant, Kamala, challenging the acquittal of 15 accused individuals by the Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Act Cases, Manjeri. The case stemmed from an incident in 2010, where the accused were charged under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the SC/ST Act. Kamala also filed a private complaint against two additional individuals not named in the police chargesheet. Both cases were clubbed and tried jointly by the Special Court, which acquitted the accused except two who were absconding. The de facto complainant argued that the Special Court had erred in its findings, particularly in concluding that the alleged insult or humiliation did not occur “within public view” as required under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act.

High Court’s Observations

Justice G. Girish upheld the findings of the Special Court, emphasizing the importance of the “public view” requirement under the SC/ST Act. “For the applicability of Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST POA Act, as it stood prior to the amendment of the year 2015, it has to be established that the intentional insult or intimidation to cause humiliation to a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe should be at a place within public view. As far as the present case is concerned, since the incident admittedly took place in the dining room of the house of the petitioner, it is not possible to say that it so happened at a place within public view,” the court noted. The bench clarified that “public view” implies a location where members of the public are either physically present or have the opportunity to witness the alleged act. A private space, such as the dining room of a residence, inherently restricts access to household members or invited individuals and thus cannot be considered a place “within public view.”

Procedural Challenges and Evidence Evaluation

The petitioner also contended that the joint trial conducted by the Special Court was procedurally flawed. However, the High Court dismissed this argument, observing that the petitioner had not raised any objections to the joint trial at an earlier stage. “The mere fact that the learned Special Judge ventured to pronounce a common judgment in these cases, cannot by itself be taken as a circumstance which would vitiate the proceedings,” the court held, adding that no failure of justice had been demonstrated. The High Court further noted inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, including the complainant. It was revealed during cross-examination that Kamala was unaware of the contents of her complaint and had merely signed it at her counsel’s instruction. Moreover, she admitted that her husband had been arrested a week prior to the filing of her complaint for attempting to murder one of the accused and had been implicated in illicit liquor cases. The court found this pointed to a potential ulterior motive behind the complaint.

Verdict

The High Court concluded that the evidence presented by the prosecution was unreliable and insufficient to establish the alleged offence under the SC/ST Act. “Taking into account the shabby and unreliable evidence tendered by PW1 and the other witnesses examined as PW2 to PW8, the Trial Court cannot be found fault with for arriving at the conclusion that the offence alleged against the accused could not be established by the prosecution,” the court observed. Dismissing the revision petition, the High Court upheld the Special Court’s judgment acquitting the accused, reiterating the principle that an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act requires the act to occur in a location within “public view” to be actionable.

Cause Title: Kamala E.P v Ummer and Others

Case No: CRL.REV.PET NO. 1575 OF 2017

Date: January-22-2025

Bench: Justice G. Girish

[Read/Download order]