The Supreme Court recently ruled that an alleged caste-based insult or intimidation that occurred in the backyard of a private house does not qualify as being “within public view” under Section 3 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh discharged the appellant, who had been charged under Sections 294 and 506 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act, 1989. The Court emphasized, “The place of occurrence of the alleged offence was at the backyard of the appellant's house. Backyard of a private house cannot be within the public view. The persons who accompanied the second respondent (complainant) were also the employees or the labour force she had engaged for the purpose of carrying out repairs to her house which is adjacent to the appellant's house. They cannot also be termed as public in general.”
The Court set aside the Orissa High Court's decision, which had upheld the rejection of the appellant’s discharge application. The complainant, a member of a Scheduled Caste, had alleged that the appellant insulted and intimidated her in the backyard of his house. She had entered the backyard with her employees, without prior permission, to carry out repairs to her house adjacent to the appellant's. The appellant objected to their entry, allegedly using insulting or intimidating words.
The appellant filed an application under Section 239 CrPC seeking discharge, asserting that the alleged actions did not meet the "within public view" requirement under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act. The Additional Sessions Judge rejected this, and the High Court upheld the decision. The appellant argued that the backyard, being a private space, did not qualify as "within public view," and that the alleged incident occurred due to a civil dispute between the complainant's family and his wife. He also referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand to support his argument.
The State argued against interference at this stage, as the trial was advanced, with several witnesses already examined. However, the Supreme Court concluded that the backyard of a private house does not qualify as a place "within public view" and that the complainant’s employees were not part of the "public in general." Additionally, the Court reaffirmed that a civil dispute, such as the one between the families, does not automatically equate to an offence under the SC/ST Act unless caste-based abuse or harassment is involved. In this case, the Court found no such evidence of caste-based abuse.
Consequently, the Supreme Court discharged the appellant from all charges under both the SC/ST Act and the IPC, overturning the previous orders of the High Court and the Additional Sessions Judge.
Cause Title: Rabindra Kumar Chhatoi v. State of Odisha & Anr.
