Balasaheb Annasaheb Dhavale vs The State Of Maharashtra

Citation : 2017 Latest Caselaw 4402 Bom
Judgement Date : 12 July, 2017

Bombay High Court
Balasaheb Annasaheb Dhavale vs The State Of Maharashtra on 12 July, 2017
Bench: V.K. Tahilramani
                                                                                 6. cri apeal 516-17.doc


RMA      
                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 516 OF 2017


            Balasaheb Annasaheb Dhavale                                  .. Appellant

                                 Versus
            The State of Maharashtra & Anr.                              .. Respondents

                                                  ...................
            Appearances
            Mr. Aniket U. Nikam a/w
            Mr. Piyush Toshnival i/by
            Mr. Aashish Satpute       Advocate for the Appellant
            Mr. H.J. Dedhia           APP for the State
            Mr. V.V. Purwant          Advocate for Respondent No. 2
                                                  ...................



                              CORAM       : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &
                                              SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ.

DATE : JULY 12, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] :

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant - original accused, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for respondent No. 2 - original complainant.

2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 8.6.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-4, jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 5 ::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:30:05 :::

6. cri apeal 516-17.doc Solapur in Criminal Bail Application No. 441 of 2017 preferred by the appellant in C.R. No. 182/2017 of Tembhurni Police Station, Solapur. By the said order, the application of the appellant for anticipatory bail came to be rejected, hence, this appeal.

3. A perusal of the FIR shows that on 5.5.2017, the complainant who belongs to Schedule Caste was working in the field. At that time, the appellant abused the complainant in relation to his caste. Learned APP submitted that in this view of the matter, the provisions of Section 3 (1) (r) of the Schedules Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are attracted.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that for the provisions of 3 (1) (r) to be attracted, the act should have taken place within public view which means that the act should be visible and audible to the third party. If such an act takes place in closed premises and not in presence of jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 5 ::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:30:05 :::

6. cri apeal 516-17.doc third person, then such act cannot be stated to be either visible or audible to the public. Mr. Nikam submitted that the FIR nowhere discloses that the words uttered were in any manner visible or audible to a third party. The FIR does not disclose that the incident was seen by any third party. Mr. Nikam submitted that to attract the provisions of Section 3 (1) (r) of the S.C. & S.T. Act, the act should have occurred within public view. The expression "public view" has a specific meaning and every allegations made in a public place by itself would not amount to an offence under the S.C. & S.T. Act. Mr. Nikam reiterated that the act of insult or intimidation must be visible and audible to the public in order to constitute an offence under the S.C. & S.T. Act. Mr. Nikam drew our attention to the FIR wherein the complainant has stated that he was alone in the field when the accused abused him in relation to his caste. Thus, Mr. Nikam submitted that as the words allegedly uttered were not visible or audible to a third party, the provisions of Section 3 (1) (r) of the S.C. & S.T. Act would not be attracted.

jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                             3 of 5




       ::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017                   ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:30:05 :::
                                                                6. cri apeal 516-17.doc




5. As far as the above contention is concerned, the learned APP pointed out the statements of the witnesses which were recorded during the investigation. These statements were recorded on 5.5.2017 itself that is on the date the FIR was lodged. He drew our attention to the statements of Dilip and Navnath who have clearly stated that they heard the appellant giving abuses in relation to caste to the complainant. Thus, even though the complainant has stated that he was alone in his field, it does not mean that there was no other persons present nearby who have witnessed and heard the abuses uttered by the appellant in relation to his caste.

6. In view of the statements of the witnesses i.e Dilip and Navnath, it is clear that some persons other than the complainant had heard about the abuses being given by the appellant to the complainant in relation to his caste. In this view of the matter, Section 3(1)(r) of the S.C. & S.T. Act is jfoanz vkacsjdj 4 of 5 ::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:30:05 :::

6. cri apeal 516-17.doc clearly attracted. Hence, no case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.




[ SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J. ]             [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ]




jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                       5 of 5




       ::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017             ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:30:05 :::