In response to a petition, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that merely saying wrong words (which have caste connotations) over a phone call in the absence of public gaze or third party does not constitute an offence u/s 3 of SC/ ST Act for want of 'mens rea' or intention.
Factual Matrix
In 2017, an FIR was registered against the Petitioners u/s 506/34 IPC and Sections 3(1) (r) and 3 (1)(s) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act), by the Respondent (who was also the village Sarpanch) for allegedly threatening to kill him and for using abusive language having casteist undertone, over a phone call.
When the matter reached the Additional Sessions Judge (Exclusive Court for Heinous Crime against Women), Kurukshetra, it was held by the Court in the impugned order, that the offences made punishable by the above-mentioned sections were made out and thus charges were framed against the petitioners. Therefore, aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioners approached the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
Petitioners' Case
The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the allegations made against the petitioners did not fall within the provisions of the SC/ST Act because the use of casteist slur over a 'telephonic call' was not an act done in 'public view.'
Respondent's Case
Per contra, the Respondent argued that the allegations made by him did fall within the provisions of the SC/ST Act because the allegations made against the petitioners accused were specific in nature and not generic.
Reasoning of the Court
The Court divided the entire position of law governing this matter, into two segments, namely; (a) whether passing Castiest slur in private, constitute the aforesaid offences; and (b) when, in a case, there are two possible views, which one is to be given priority.
The Court came to the conclusion that to constitute an offence under the ST/ SC Act, the existence of 'mens rea' [under this Act: ‘intention to insult’ and ‘intimidation with an intention to humiliate’] coupled with an overt act done in 'public view' is a must.
Thus, the Court observed that:
“once it is admitted that the alleged conversation over the mobile phone was not in a public gaze nor witnessed by any third party, the alleged use of caste words cannot be said to have been committed within the public view.” Therefore, the Court held that; "merely uttering such wrong words in the absence of any public view does not show any intention or mens rea to humiliate the complainant and thus, ipso-facto, will not constitute acts of commission of offence, which are capable of being taken cognizance under the SC and ST Act, 1989.”
While discussing the second segment of the order, the Court made a reference to the case of Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad v K. Narayana Rao to hold that it is a settled law that if two views are possible and one gives rise to suspicion only (as distinguished from grave suspicion), the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at that stage it is not to be seen whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal.
Decision of the Court
Citing the failure of the prosecution to establish a prima facie evidence of the commission of offences u/s 3 of the SC/ ST Act, the Court set aside the impugned order of Additional Sessions Judge (Exclusive Court for Heinous Crime against Women), Kurukshetra, and also quashed the FIR registered against the Petitioners.
Case Details
Before: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana
Quorum: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harnaresh Singh Gill
Case No. 1354 of 2019
Petitioners: Pradeep Kumar
Respondent: State of Haryana and Others
Decided on: 14.05.2020
Read Order @Latest Laws.com
