Recently, the Delhi High Court held that mere ill-treatment of a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste does not constitute an offence under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, unless there is a clear and specific intent to humiliate on the basis of caste. The Court firmly noted that without a direct nexus between the alleged act and caste-based humiliation, criminal prosecution under the Act cannot be sustained.
Brief facts:
The case stemmed from a writ petition seeking the quashing of an FIR registered under Sections 323 and 504 of the IPC and Section 3 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, arising out of an altercation between two colleagues during a departmental meeting. The dispute, initially relating to the signing of meeting minutes, escalated into a physical confrontation. Importantly, the first complaints made immediately after the incident did not contain any allegation of caste-based remarks, which were introduced only in later versions. The accused approached the High Court contending that the FIR was an abuse of process, as the essential ingredients of the offences, particularly the requirement of caste-based intent under the SC/ST Act, were not made out
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Petitioner contended that the FIR was a clear abuse of process, arising from a personal dispute and later embellished with caste allegations. The Counsel argued that the initial complaints were completely silent on any caste-based remarks, and such allegations were introduced as an afterthought. The Petitioner submitted that the essential ingredients of Section 3 of the SC/ST Act, intentional insult or intimidation with the specific intent to humiliate on the basis of caste, were not made out. The Counsel further argued that even if the allegations were taken at face value, they disclosed, at best, a case of simple altercation and not an offence under the SC/ST Act.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The complainant argued that she had been physically assaulted and humiliated in public view, and that the petitioner harboured a caste-based bias against her. The Counsel contended that the incident was not merely a personal dispute but involved humiliation on account of her Scheduled Caste identity. The State supported the prosecution, relying on witness statements and the complainant’s subsequent assertions to argue that the ingredients of the SC/ST Act were satisfied, particularly as the incident occurred in a public setting.
Observation of the Court:
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed that “For an offence to be made out under Section 3 of SC/ST Act, it is essential that the alleged act must have been committed with the intent to humiliate the victim, specifically on account of her caste identity. It is not sufficient that the Complainant belongs to a Scheduled Caste and that she was subjected to ill-treatment or a physical altercation. The nexus between the alleged act and the caste identity of the victim, must be clearly and unequivocally established from the very face of the Complaint.”
The Court emphasised that mere ill-treatment or physical altercation is insufficient to invoke the SC/ST Act without a clear caste-based intent. The Court clarified that the gravamen of an offence under Section 3 of the SC/ST Act lies not merely in the act of insult or assault, but in the intention behind it. It highlighted that the prosecution must demonstrate that the act was committed specifically to humiliate the victim on account of her caste identity. In the present case, the Court found that the dispute originated from an administrative disagreement and escalated into a personal altercation, with no immediate indication of caste-based targeting. The Bench cautioned that criminal liability under the SC/ST Act cannot be attracted merely because the complainant belongs to a Scheduled Caste.
The Bench observed that the absence of caste-related allegations in initial complaints undermines the prosecution’s case. The Bench closely examined the sequence of complaints and noted that the earliest versions, including those made on the date of the incident, contained no reference to any casteist remark or humiliation. It found that caste-based allegations surfaced only in subsequent complaints, thereby raising serious doubts about their credibility. The Court underscored that such material improvements cannot form the basis of criminal prosecution under a stringent statute like the SC/ST Act. It further noted that even later complaints lacked specificity and failed to clearly attribute caste-based remarks to the accused.
The Court held that vague and uncorroborated allegations cannot satisfy the statutory threshold under the SC/ST Act. The Bench pointed out that only one witness attributed specific casteist remarks to the accused, and even that remained uncorroborated by other witnesses present at the scene. The complainant herself did not consistently assert specific caste-based abuse in her statements. The Court emphasised that such isolated and unsubstantiated claims cannot meet the strict evidentiary standard required to invoke penal provisions under the Act. It reiterated that the law demands clear, specific, and credible allegations demonstrating a direct nexus between the act and caste-based humiliation.
Further, the Court held that procedural lapses further vitiated the FIR under IPC provisions. Apart from the substantive deficiencies, the Court noted that offences under Sections 323 and 504 of the IPC are non-cognizable, and the FIR had been registered without prior permission of the Magistrate as mandated under Section 155(2) of the CrPC. This procedural illegality rendered the FIR unsustainable even on independent grounds. The Court thus concluded that continuation of proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of law.
The decision of the Court:
The Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR along with all consequential proceedings. It held that in the absence of specific and credible allegations demonstrating caste-based intent, the provisions of the SC/ST Act cannot be invoked. The Court reaffirmed that criminal law cannot be set in motion on vague or improved allegations, and that a clear nexus between the alleged act and caste-based humiliation is a sine qua non for prosecution under the SC/ST Act.
Case Title: Ranjit Kaur Vs. State N.C.T. of Delhi and Anr.
Case No.: W.P.(Crl) 1622/2021
Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Advocate for the Petitioner: Sr. Adv. N. Hariharan, Adv. Vaibhav Sharma, Adv. Urvashi Sharma, Adv. Vinayak Gautam
Advocate for the Respondent: ASC Rupali Bandhopadhya, ACP Garima Tiwari, Insp. Yashwant, SI Sonal Raj, Adv. Pooja Roy
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
