The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted anticipatory bail to the accused under the SC and SC/ST Act and held that to constitute an offence under the Act, the insults or intimidation should be on account of the victim belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and further another important key ingredient of provisions is that the insult or intimidation should be in any place within public view.
Brief Facts:
The present appeal was filed by the appellant against the order of the trial court whereby the plea of anticipatory bail was dismissed after the appellant was accused in a murder case and offence for passing casteist remark under Sections 302, 307, 323 of the IPC, 1860 and Sections 3 & 4 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that all the allegations against the appellant are false and no role has been attributed to her. Further, it was submitted that FIR does not disclose as to what words were used by the appellant, which itself shows the allegations to be vague, having no basis and besides, there is nothing to show that the appellant had any prior knowledge of the caste of the complainant, compelling her to utter any such words and so, prima facie, ingredients of Section 3 & 4 of The SC & ST, Act 1989 are not fulfilled. Further, it was submitted that the alleged casteist derogatory words have not been used within public view.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state argued that the appellant used casteist words against the complainant in a derogatory manner, which fact is duly mentioned in the FIR itself lodged on the statement of the complainant and that said the statement after his death is required to be treated as his dying declaration. It was further contended that the dying declaration is not the weaker kind of evidence and that it stands on the same footing as other evidence. It was further submitted that during the investigation, the caste certificate of the deceased was taken into possession and that custodial interrogation of the appellant is required to make enquiries about the occurrence; and that in view of the bar contained in Sections 18 & 18A of The SC & ST Act, learned Special Judge has rightly declined the anticipatory bail and so, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
Observations of the court:
The court referred to the judgment in Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, wherein it was held that the object of the Act is to punish violators, who inflict indignities, humiliations and harassment against the vulnerable section of the society and thus, the Act is intended to punish acts of upper caste against vulnerable section of society for reason that they belong to a particular community.
It was stated that Section 18 & 18A of the SC & ST, Act provides that provisions of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall not apply in relation to any case involving the arrest of any person on an accusation of having committed an offence under the SC & ST, Act but the Court is not debarred from considering as to whether, from the accusations made, prima facie offence under Section SC/ST, Act is made out or not.
The court stated that in the present case, the only attribution against the appellant is that she uttered the words as to what was the status of the complainant to purchase the Banquet Hall and used casteist words against him and the said occurrence took place in the Banquet Hall when only the complainant party; appellant and her family members were present i.e., not within another public view and thus Section 4 of the Act is regarding punishment for neglect of duties on the part of a public servant and is not at all applicable to the facts of this case qua the appellant.
Further, the court stated that all insults or intimidation to a person would not be an offence under the Act unless such insults or intimidation is on account of a victim belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and further another important key ingredient of provision is that the insult or intimidation should be in any place within public view and thus, the accused must know that the complainant or the aggrieved person is a member of Scheduled Caste/Schedules Tribe besides the intentional insult or intimidation, or abusing must be in any public place within the public view.
The decision of the Court:
The court allowed the appeal and granted anticipatory bail to the appellant.
Case Title: Rajinder Kaur vs State of Punjab
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta
Case No.: CRA-S-2689-2023
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Tanvir Singh Attariwala
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Randeep Singh Khaira and Mr. Manish Verma
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
