The State By vs Vipin S/O M.Nanu on 5 August, 2021
15. PW.4 & 5 are the official witnesses who have done
their duty in the course of investigation, the panchanama is
11
Spl.C.No. 37/2018
not proved. In so far as accusation under SC/ST Act is
concerned, she has not stated as to before whom, accused had
scolded her and who were present and heard the abuses has
not been stated. Hence, the ingredient of public view is not
established as held by Hon'ble High court of Karnataka in
Appoji Reddy V/s. State of Karnataka that "place within public
view presupposes the presence of person other than the accused
persons, who are alleged to have committed offences" and
Hon'ble High court of Karnataka in Crl.A No.422/2021 dated
01.06.2021 in N Srinivas Vs. State of Karnataka has held that
"In order to make out a prima facie case statement must be
made in place within public view and secondly statement is to
be made only because complainant belongs to that caste" .The
entire materials nowhere discloses that accused has abused or
insulted in public view. Any act alleged has to be done only
with an intention to humiliate, insult or abuse person as
belonging to SC/ST. In the present case, it is bifurcation of
waste the incident is alleged. Complainant has not been
abused or insulted only because she belongs to Scheduled
Caste.