Back
holds mere use of 'Chamar' without insult intent not SC/ST Act violation
In a significant ruling that clarifies the boundaries of caste-based offences under the (SC/ST Act), the has held that the mere utterance of the word “Chamar” does not, by itself, constitute an offence under unless there is material to show that the word was used with the intention or knowledge of insulting or humiliating the victim on the ground of her caste. The Court quashed a passed under , now corresponding to , against two appellants who were not originally charge-sheeted.
Justice Santosh Rai, presiding over the criminal appeal, emphasized that the power to summon additional accused under Section 319 CrPC is extraordinary and must be exercised sparingly, relying on evidence that is “” and “unmistakably” points toward complicity. The decision reinforces the principle that casteist slurs, to be punishable, must be accompanied by a specific mental element targeting the victim’s caste identity.
Caste Slur Without Intent: No Offence
The case arose from an FIR registered at , under and various provisions of the SC/ST Act, including Sections 3(2)(5A), 3(2)(r), and 3(2)(s). The main accused, Himmat Singh, was charge-sheeted after investigation, while his father, Vegraj, and elder brother, Daulat (the appellants), were exonerated by the investigating officer.
During the trial, the victim—examined as PW-1—stated in her that the appellants had abused her and used the word “Chamar”. On the strength of that deposition, the , summoned the appellants on under Section 319 CrPC. Aggrieved, the appellants challenged the order before the High Court.
The Court observed that the victim’s statements recorded under did not attribute any specific casteist word or distinct role to either appellant concerning the alleged abuse and criminal . “Mere use of the word ‘Chamar’, however, would not, by itself, establish that the appellants used the said word with the intention or knowledge of insulting or humiliating the victim on the ground of her belonging to an SC/ST community,” Justice Rai noted.
Strict Threshold for Summoning
The High Court drew heavily on the Constitution Bench decision in , which laid down that the power under Section 319 CrPC is extraordinary and should be exercised sparingly. The requirement is evidence stronger than the case used at the stage of framing charge; there must be “reliable, material or evidence pointing unmistakably towards the complicity” of the person sought to be summoned.
Applying this standard, the Court found that the deposition of PW-1 alone, without any prior consistent attribution of a , fell short of the required threshold. The Court noted that no specific casteist word had been mentioned in the , and that the victim’s trial testimony had to be weighed against the backdrop of the investigation having exonerated the appellants.
Court Relies on Precedents
The judgment placed reliance on two rulings: and . Both decisions underscore that the word “Chamar” or similar terms may amount to a casteist abuse, but to attract the SC/ST Act, the provision requires or coupled with an intent to the victim because of her membership in a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Mere casual use or abuse during a quarrel is insufficient.
Justice Rai observed, “The word may amount to an offence when used as casteist abuse, but the provision requires or coupled with an intent to the victim because she belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, mere abuse or quarrel being insufficient.” This clarification is crucial for trial courts, which often face applications for summoning based on unsubstantiated allegations.
Impact on Legal Practice
The ruling sends a strong message that the SC/ST Act is not a regime for every utterance of a caste name. Legal practitioners representing accused persons in caste-related offences can now argue that the prosecution must lead specific evidence of —the intent to on the ground of caste—at the summoning stage itself. Conversely, victims’ advocates must ensure that allegations of casteist remarks are recorded consistently during the investigation and in to avoid claims of embellishment.
From a procedural perspective, the judgment reinforces the high bar for summoning additional accused under Section 319 CrPC. Trial courts must scrutinize the evidence with greater caution, especially when the police have already exonerated a named suspect. The decision may lead to more nuanced assessments of witness testimony and prevent the casual expansion of the accused pool.
Conclusion
By setting aside the dated , the has reaffirmed that the SC/ST Act is designed to penalize deliberate caste-based humiliation, not ordinary insults or colloquial language. The case— —serves as a practical guide on the interplay between witness testimony, investigative findings, and the of the trial court to summon additional accused. Legal professionals will find the judgment instructive for both substantive and procedural arguments in caste-related litigation.
