Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine." (emphasis supplied)

32. The ingredients of the aforesaid offence were culled out in Daya Bhatnagar (supra) as follows:

"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... ...". (Emphasis supplied)
(a) A person making the alleged derogatory utterance must know that the person whom he was intentionally insulting, intimidating with intent to humiliate him was a member of SC/ST.
(b) Such intentional insult, intimidation or humiliation must be directed against and made to a member of SC/ST and for being member of SC/ST.
(c) The utterance must be made at any place within "public view"." (emphasis supplied)

34. The Division Bench observed in paragraphs 10, 12 and 13 of this decision as follows:

37. A perusal of the offending posts put by the petitioner on her facebook 'wall' do not show that they were directed against any individual member of any scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. In D.P. Vats (supra), the Division Bench set out the ingredients of the offence u/s 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(x)(1) of the SC/ST Act which have been taken note of herein above. To constitute an offence under the said provision, the person making the alleged derogatory utterances must know that the person whom he was intentionally insulting or intimidating with intent to humiliate was a member of the SC/ST. Secondly, the intentional insult or intimidation to humiliate must be directed against and made to a member of the scheduled caste or scheduled tribe on account of the fact that the said person is a member of the scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. The Division Bench specifically observed that if utterances was not directed against a member of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe, but were directed against members of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe or the community as a whole, it would not make out an offence u/s 3(1)(x). The Division Bench in D.P. Vats (supra) deliberated on the words "a member"

38. Thus, in my view, the first two ingredients of the offences u/s 3(1)(x)

- as set out in D.P. Vats (supra), viz. (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, are not present in the facts of the present case.

39. I now proceed to consider the second limb of the submission of Mr. Mittal that the facebook 'wall' of a member cannot be described as a place within public view. The issue as to what constitutes a place within public view was considered in Daya Bhatnagar (supra).