Balasaheb Annasaheb Dhavale vs The State Of Maharashtra
2017 Latest Caselaw 4402 Bom

                                                                                 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

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

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





                                                                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

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