SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act- Abuses, Insult Or Humiliation Must Take Place In Presence Of Or In The Proximity Of Atleast One Independent Public Witness: Bombay High Court

inbatv News

The Bombay High Court held that to sue any person under the charges of Section 3(1)(s)of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the incident must be taken place under the presence of witness who is independent of both, the prosecution as well as the defense. The court was hearing the Criminal Appeal of Salim Abdul Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and others[i].

Section 3(1)(s) reads as-

 3. Punishments for offences of atrocities :

(1)(s) abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view;

The court explained the section with the reference of the judgment in the matter of Pradnya Pradeep Kenkare and Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra[ii] and further stated that-

“It is, thus, clear that the word “public” not only relates to the location defined by the word “place” but also to the subjects witnessing the incidence of insult or intimidation to the member of scheduled castes or scheduled tribe. Presence of both ingredients is absolutely necessary for making out the offence of atrocity”

“It is, thus, clear that, abuses, insult or humiliation must take place in presence of or in the proximity of atleast one independent public witness.”, the court further clarified the expression “public view” with reference to the matter of Balu s/o. Bajirao Galande vs. State of Maharashtra and Another[iii].

Gist of the Matter

The matter revolves around the appellant Salim Abdul Sheikh and his family, and First Informant Rajeshri and her family along with one more relative Shrutika. Rajeshri alleged that the appellant had abused her and her husband Vilas in the name of her caste. This event was witnessed by Neha Khosla as the public view, as vehemently alleged by the learned counsel of the prosecution. On the next day of incidence, a relative of the First Informant, namely Shrutika, alleged that accused had touched her hand and that was sexual in nature.

The appellant was put under the charges of Sections 354[iv], 440[v], 277[vi], 143[vii], 504[viii] and 506[ix] of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Sections 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i)(ii) and 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 2015 of which the court emphasized on Section 3(1)(s) and Section 3(1)(w)(i)(ii) which reads as-

“(1)(w)(i)-intentionally touches a woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, knowing that she belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, when such act of touching is of a sexual nature and is without the recipient’s consent;”

“(1)(w)(ii) uses words, acts or gestures of a sexual nature towards a woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, knowing that she belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe.”

The learned counsel of defense vehemently argued that the Accused/appellant was not present in the spot of which the matter is. The defense also contended that the touch was not at all with the sexual intention and hence was not in sexual in nature as alleged by the prosecution. “The learned counsel further argued that the allegations are per se false. No such incident took place and the appellant/accused was not even present on the spot of the incident at the time of the alleged incident. To substantiate this contention, according to the learned counsel for the appellant/accused, a compact disc containing C.C.T.V. footage is already produced before the Investigating Officer. With this, the learned counsel submits that the appellant/accused is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail[x].”

Appeal Disposed

The court held that the as per the relevant sections of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)Act, 2015 the ‘public view’ shall be an important essential against the charges of the same. There shall be the presence of, or in the proximity of atleast one independent public witness. But the court observed that the witness who claimed to be the independent witness of the matter was the friend of the prosecuting party. Further, the words and the acts of the appellant towards Shrutika was not of the sexual nature. Hence, the appeal was disposed off by the Bombay High Court.

Report By-

Sakshee Sahay

Student Reporter,

Indian National Bar Association

[i] https://bombayhighcourt.nic.in/generatenewauth.php?auth=cGF0aD0uL2RhdGEvanVkZ2VtZW50cy8yMDE5LyZmbmFtZT1DUkFQRUFMMTAxNjE4LnBkZiZzbWZsYWc9TiZyanVkZGF0ZT0mdXBsb2FkZHQ9MjUvMDkvMjAxOSZzcGFzc3BocmFzZT0yOTA5MTkxMDA1NDE=

[ii] 2005 (3) Mh.L.J. 368

[iii] 2006 6 AIR (BOM) ® 251

[iv] Assualt or use of Criminal force to woman with intend to outrage her modesty.

[v] Mischief committed after preparation made causing death or hurt.

[vi] Fouling water of Public Spring or Reservoir.

[vii]  Punishment against Unlawful Assembly

[viii] Intentional insult with intend to provoke breach of peace.

[ix] Punishment of Criminal Intimidation

[x] https://bombayhighcourt.nic.in/generatenewauth.php?auth=cGF0aD0uL2RhdGEvanVkZ2VtZW50cy8yMDE5LyZmbmFtZT1DUkFQRUFMMTAxNjE4LnBkZiZzbWZsYWc9TiZyanVkZGF0ZT0mdXBsb2FkZHQ9MjUvMDkvMjAxOSZzcGFzc3BocmFzZT0yOTA5MTkxMDA1NDE=