SC and ST Act-insult behind back of victim does not amount offence under Atrocities Act

Therefore the observations and findings recorded by the
learned trial Judge that since the incident of alleged act of
insult had not taken place in presence of the complainant, it

would be too far stretching to envelope within clause (x) of
10]
Section 3(1) the utterances done in absence of the victim.
Such utterances may exhibit a feeling of contempt in the
mind of the person who has become vocal.
mind,
notions
and
feelings,
It may reflect his
harbouring
contempt
and
discourtesy, but would not render such person, ipso facto an
offender, qua the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.96 OF 2013
Mohanbhai Delkar

vs.


Lalit Babu Patel 

CORAM : A. H. JOSHI, J.
DATE : 26th AUGUST, 2013
Citation;2013 ALL M R(cri)4354

This is an appeal against the acquittal.
The respondent
was charged for commission of offence under Section 3(1)(x)
of
the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities Act) 1989.
2]
has
The trial went on after framing of charge.
examined
5
witnesses.
The
witness
no.1
Prosecution
is
the
eye
witness.

Victim is PW-3.
hearsay.
The version of PW-3 is evident to be
Entire case rests on the
4]
testimony of PW-1 Sitaram
Gavali.
3]

After appreciation of evidence and considering the law,
the learned Special Judge acquitted the accused.
Learned Special Judge held that the act of using abusive
5]
insult,
if
any,

words referable to the caste of the accused resulting into
was
committed
by
the
accused,
where
the
complainant was not personally present at place where the
abusive words were allegedly uttered.
6]
The judgment is challenged urging that abuses even in
absence would constitute commission of offence.
This Court had a second look on Section 3(1)(x) of the
Scheduled
Castes
Atrocities)
Act,
and
1989,
the
Scheduled
It
would
be
Tribes
useful
(Prevention
to
quote
of
the
relevant text which reads as follows:-
7]
“3(1)(x)- intentionally insults or intimidates with
intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or
a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view.”
8]
It is apparent on a plain reading of the text
which is
quoted that the contemplation of clause (x) of Section 3(1)
of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989, that the insult or intimidation has

to be on the face of the victim “viva voce” and in public
If
the
abusive
words
over
caste
etc,
are
uttered
view.
behind back it could be anything but may not be the offence
defined under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989,
9]
Therefore the observations and findings recorded by the
learned trial Judge that since the incident of alleged act of
insult had not taken place in presence of the complainant, it

would be too far stretching to envelope within clause (x) of
10]
Section 3(1) the utterances done in absence of the victim.
Such utterances may exhibit a feeling of contempt in the
mind of the person who has become vocal.
mind,
notions
and
feelings,
It may reflect his
harbouring
contempt
and
discourtesy, but would not render such person, ipso facto an
offender, qua the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
11]
shown
In so far as the fact finding is concerned, it is not
that
the
findings
recorded
by
the
Magistrate
are
perverse. Therefore second opinion of the evidence cannot be
resorted
before
appellate
court
in
an
appeal
against
acquittal sheer by for asking.
12]
In so far as the aspect of worthiness of testimony of
PW-1 is concerned, the finding recorded by Special Judge is
neither
open
for
re-appreciation
by
appellate
court
for

recourse to second opinion of same evidence.
taking

Once, the point of view resorted to by the learned trial
Judge is seen to be a possible view and thereupon the learned
trial Judge declined to order conviction such a judgment, is
not
open
for
substitution
by
any
other
point
of
view
or
finding so long the findings are not shown to be perverse.
In the given situation, the judgment of acquittal based
ig
14]
No such submission has come forward.
on the interpretation of Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989, does not call for interference.
15]
In the situation, application and appeal do not have any
( A. H. JOSHI, J.)
wadhwa
merit and are dismissed.

Print Page