Recently, the Rajasthan High Court revisited a decades-old criminal case arising out of a commercial dispute between a motorcycle showroom owner and a customer, and examined whether the stringent provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act could be attracted in the facts of the case.
The case arose from an incident dating back to August 1991, when the complainant alleged that he was intentionally insulted, intimidated and assaulted by the accused by reference to his caste inside a motorcycle showroom. A criminal case was registered alleging offences under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act and Section 323 of the IPC.
The background, however, revealed a purely commercial relationship. The complainant had purchased a motorcycle on loan from the appellant’s showroom and had defaulted in repayment, with several cheques dishonoured. After the motorcycle met with an accident, it was repaired at the showroom, and the complainant was asked to clear the repair charges of around Rs.10,000 before delivery. It was during this dispute over payment that the alleged incident took place.
The trial court convicted the accused in 1994, awarding simple imprisonment under both provisions, which led to the present appeal before the High Court.
Before the High Court, the Appellant contended that the dispute was purely contractual in nature and that the criminal case was an afterthought arising out of non-payment of dues. It was argued that there was no proof of any caste-based insult occurring in a place “within public view,” an essential ingredient under the SC/ST Act. The defence also highlighted the complete absence of medical evidence to support allegations of physical assault.
The State, on the other hand, supported the trial court’s findings and argued that the complainant’s testimony and the prosecution's evidence were sufficient to sustain the conviction.
After a detailed examination of the record, Justice Farjand Ali noted that the prosecution's version suffered from serious infirmities. The Court found that there was no reliable proof that the complainant had attempted to pay through a demand draft, nor was there any medical evidence to corroborate the allegation of assault.
Crucially, the Court observed that even if the complainant’s version was taken at face value, the alleged incident had occurred entirely inside the closed premises of the showroom. Relying on the statutory requirement and settled interpretation of Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act, the Court emphasised that the alleged insult must occur at a place “within public view,” meaning a location where members of the public can witness the act. An incident confined within the four walls of a private shop, without any independent public presence, would not satisfy this essential condition.
The Court cautioned against the mechanical application of the stringent provisions of a special penal statute to disputes that essentially arise from private commercial transactions.
Holding that the prosecution had failed to establish the essential ingredients of both the offence under the SC/ST Act and the IPC beyond a reasonable doubt, the High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the 1994 conviction and sentence. The Appellant was acquitted of all charges, and his bail bonds were discharged.
Case Title: Brij Mohan V. State of Rajasthan
Case No.: S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 494/1994
Coram: Hon’ble Mr Justice Farjand Ali
Counsel for the Appellant: Adv. Rajiv Bishnoi
Counsel for the Respondent: AGA Rajesh Bhati, AGA Ravindra Bhati, AGA Anjali Kaushik
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
