Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. Accused Rajbala is facing trial for offences alleged to be committed u/s 3(1)(x)/(b) SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. She is accused of intentionally insult and intimidated with intent to humiliate complainant "KD" (member of SC/ST community) by uttering caste based derogatory remarks to her and by dumping sewage water on the complainant intentionally knowing it that she belongs to SC/ST community.

FIR No. 427/17. State Vs. Rajbala.

(ii) In Daya Bhatnagar And Ors. vs State, 109 (2004) DLT 915 it was held as under: -

"15. Basic ingredients for the offence under Clause
(x) of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act, revealed through the bare reading of this section are as follows: (a) there should be intentional insult or intimidation by a person, who is not a member of SC or ST; (b) the insult must be with an intent to humiliate the member of the SC or ST. As the intent to humiliate is necessary, it follows that the accused must have knowledge or awareness that the victim belongs to the SC or ST. This can be inferred even from long association; and (c) the incident must occur in any place within the public view. There cannot be any dispute that the offence can be committed at any place whether it is a private place or a "public view" as long as it is within the "public view". The requirement of "public view" can be satisfied even in a private place, where the public is present. I find myself in agreement with the following observations of learned brother Mr. Justice. B.A. Khan while expounding the ingredients of the offence: -
"If the accused does not know that the person whom he was intentionally insulting or intimidating or humiliating is a member of SC or ST, an offence under this section would not be constituted. Similarly, if he does not do all this at any place within "public view", the offence would not be made out. Therefore, to attract an offence under Section 3(i)(x), an accused must know that victim belongs to SC/ST caste and he must intentionally insult, FIR No. 427/17. State Vs. Rajbala.

49. From the above discussions, it emerges that for commission of offences u/s 3(1)(x) SC/ST (POA) Act, the prosecution has to prove as under: -

(a) There should be intentionally insult or intimidation by a person, who is not a member of SC/ST community;
(b) The insult must be with the intent to humiliate the member of SC/ST community;
(c) The incident must occur in any place within the public view.

50. Similarly for commission of offence u/s 3(1)(b) of SC/ST (POA) Act, the prosecution must prove the act of dumping excreta, sewage, carcasses or any other obnoxious substance in premises or at the entrance of the premises occupying by a member of SC/ST community. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Hitesh Verma (supra), has observed that the object of the SC/ST (POA) Act is to improve the socio-economic condition of SC/ST as they are denied number of civil rights. Thus, an offence under the Act would be made out when a member of vulnerable section of the society is subject to indignities, humiliations or harassment and not when an act is done without any mischief.