Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

             On     the       basis         of     the    allegation

aforestated,         a       first      information      report     was

instituted giving rise to Panapur P.S.Case No.54 of 2007 registered for offences punishable under sections 447, 379, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act.

A summary of facts essential for disposal is that a criminal case was instituted against the petitioner and some others by the opposite party no.2 giving rise to Panapur P.S.Case No.98 of 2003 for the offences punishable under the provisions of the India Penal Code and section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act. The allegation made against the accused persons in the said first information report placed at Annexure-2 charges them of using derogatory and abusive language against the opposite party no.2 in the name of his caste and of demolishing his Gumti. The police, after investigation, in the said case, submitted a charge sheet holding the allegations true under section 435, 447, 290, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act against the accused. Cognizance was taken in the said case and the matter was put to trial giving rise to Sessions Trial No.392 of 2005. The accused persons filed an application under section 227 of the Code for discharge of the offences punishable under section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act and which application was allowed by the trial court and the accused were discharged of the offences punishable under the provisions of S.C./S.T. Act by order dated 20.2.2007, copy whereof is placed at Annexure-3 to the application.

(c) such intentional insult or intimidation with an intent to humiliate ought to have taken place within full public view.

Mr. Mangalam, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that for constituting an offence punishable under section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act, the aforesaid pre-requisites have to be satisfied. It is contended that any of the essential prerequisites missing, would not constitute any offence under the SC/ST Act nor is sufficient to subject any accused to the rigours of a trial under the said Act. Learned counsel, with reference to the accusation as set out in the first information report placed at Annexure-1, submits that a bare perusal of the relevant part of the accusation, does not manifest that any attempt to insult or intimidation to the informant by use of abusive language took place in full public view. It is further contended that the informant himself has admitted that the Gumti in question was situated on his own land meaning thereby it was away from public view even if situated near the market place. It is further contended that the use of derogatory or abusive language by the accused persons, have been made in a sweeping manner, without identifying the accused or attributing the same to any of the accused persons. He thus submits that in the circumstances where the provisions of the SC/ST Act are stringent and consequences extreme, a charge made against the accused has to be specific and has to be tested with utmost caution.

Apart from the aforesaid facet another important aspect of the matter is that the accusation of use of abusive and intimidating language by the accused persons has been made in a sweeping manner without identifying the individual. The allegation set out in the first information report interestingly attributes one of the accused of instigating the others to take away the Gumti of the informant and while saying so, he allegedly uses abusive language. It is obvious that command must have been given by any one of them and not all of them collectively to each other. The informant does not clarify who issued the command to take away the Gumti and to whom. The explanation of the learned counsel for the informant that each one of the accused persons had used the abusive language, is not borne out from the first information report. The reference to the context is absent.

A perusal of the allegation made in the first information report placed at Annexure-1, manifests that none of the aforesaid pre- requisites stands satisfied. Even if an intimidating language was used by one of the accused, in absence of identification of such accused and in absence of any statement that the abuse took place before a member of a public and/or within full public view, it would not suffice to constitute an offence against the accused persons collectively. Even in the case of Swaran Singh (supra), the appellant had allegedly used abusive language against the informant but since the use of abusive language did not take place within full public view nor any member of public was said to be present at the relevant time, the appellant was acquitted of the charges under the SC/ST Act by the Supreme Court holding that no prima facie case was made out against him.