Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, ALOK ARADHE, JJ.
Keshaw Mahto @ Keshaw Kumar Mahto – Appellant
VERSUS
State Of Bihar & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 200 of 2026 Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 12144 of 2025]
Decided On : 12-01-2026
(A) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Sections 3(i)(r)(s) – Insult and abuse by caste name – Offence under Section 3(1)(r) cannot stand merely on the fact that informant/complainant is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, unless insult or intimidation is with intention to humiliate such a member of community – Any insult or intimidation towards complainant must be on the account of such person being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe – Mere knowledge of fact that complainant is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe is not sufficient to attract Section 3(1)(r) – For an offence to be made out under Section 3(1)(s), merely abusing member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe would not be enough – Saying caste name would also not constitute offence – To constitute offence under Section 3(1)(s) it would be necessary that accused abuses a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view – Allegations must reveal that abuses were laced with caste name, or caste name had been hurled as abuse – Intent with which abuses were hurled must be found to be denigrating towards caste, resulting into feeling of caste-based humiliation. (Paras 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17)
(B) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Sections 3(i)(r)(s) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 341, 323, 504, 506 and 34 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482[Section 528 of BNSS] – Insult and abuse by caste name – Wrongful confinement and hurt – Cognizance and summoning order – There is nothing on record to indicate that alleged acts of appellant were motivated for reason that complainant is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe – Neither FIR nor charge-sheet contains any whisper of allegation of insult or intimidation by appellant with intention to humiliate complainant – Allegations levelled in FIR, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie, constitute offence under either Section 3(1)(r) or under Section 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act – Insofar as offences under IPC, allegations do not inspire confidence – Allegations levelled against appellant in FIR do not meet essential ingredients of any of offences and are rather general in nature – Mere presence of appellant does not establish his participation in alleged offence – Impugned order passed by High Court set aside and criminal prosecution against appellant quashed. (Paras 18, 19, 20 and 22)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal arises from order passed by High Court of Judicature at Patna dated 15.02.2025 in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 112 of 2023, by which appeal preferred by appellant herein seeking to challenge legality and validity of cognizance and summoning order dated 09.10.2020 passed by trial court came to be dismissed.
Findings of Court:
Putting the appellant into trial, along with other co-accused, will be travesty of justice.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The offence under the relevant sections of the SC/ST Act requires that the accused's insult or intimidation be with the intention to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, and that such acts be done in public view. Merely knowing that the complainant belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Tribe is insufficient to establish the offence unless the insult or intimidation is specifically motivated by caste-based intent and is demonstrably denigrating (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
For an offence under the SC/ST Act, it is necessary that the abuse be explicitly linked to the caste name and that the content of the abuse or conduct must reveal caste-based humiliation. The intent behind the abuse must be to denigrate the caste, leading to a feeling of caste-based humiliation. Simply mentioning caste names without such intent does not constitute an offence (!) (!) (!) .
The factual record must clearly demonstrate that the acts were motivated by caste-based hostility or intent to humiliate. In the case at hand, there was no evidence suggesting the acts were motivated by caste-based animus, and the allegations did not specify any insult or intimidation with the purpose of humiliating the complainant due to caste. Therefore, the allegations did not prima facie satisfy the essential elements of the offences under the SC/ST Act (!) .
Regarding general criminal offences, the allegations against the appellant were found to be vague and did not meet the essential criteria for participation in the alleged offences. Mere presence at the scene was insufficient to establish involvement in the commission of the offences (!) .
Based on these findings, the court concluded that proceeding with trial against the appellant would constitute a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the order of the High Court was set aside, and the criminal prosecution against the appellant was quashed (!) .
The court emphasized that the act of insulting or abusing by caste name must be accompanied by a specific intent to denigrate and must be demonstrably caste-based to attract the relevant provisions. Without such intent and evidence, the offences cannot be established (!) .
If you need further analysis or assistance with specific legal strategies related to this case, please let me know.
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises from the order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna dated 15.02.2025 in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 112 of 2023, by which the appeal preferred by the appellant herein seeking to challenge the legality and validity of the cognizance and summoning order dated 09.10.2020 passed by the trial court came to be dismissed.
3. It appears from the materials on record that the appellant herein went before the High Court praying for the following relief:-
4. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on the date of the incident, the original First Informant was sitting alongwith his friend at the Aanganwadi Center situated at Santhali Tola. At that point of time, the accused persons came over there and started abusing the First Informant. It is alleged that some abuses relating to the caste of the First Informant were hurled.
5. In such circumstances referred to above, the original First Informant lodged an FIR. The FIR was investigated and ultimately chargesheet came to be filed against the appellant herein and other coaccused. On 09.10.2020, IIIrd Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST, Bhagalpur, took cognizance of the offence under Sections 341, 323, 379, 504 and 34 of the IPC respectively and Sections 3(i)(r)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, respectively against all the accused persons.
6. The appellant, being dissatisfied with the cognizance and summoning order passed by the Sessions Court, went in appeal before the High Court under Section 14A of the SC/ST Act. The High Court declined to quash the prosecution insofar as the appellant is concerned. In such circumstances, the appellant is here before this Court with the present appeal.
7. We have heard Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Samir Ali Khan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent – State. Respondent No. 2 – original First Informant, although served with the notice issued by this Court, has chosen not to remain present before this Court, either in person or through an Advocate to oppose this appeal.
8. We enquired with the learned counsel appearing for the State to show us some material insofar as the present appellant is concerned, sufficient enough to frame charge and put him into trial. The learned counsel appearing for the State, with all fairness, submitted that except the fact that the appellant was also present at the relevant point of time with the co-accused, there is no specific overt act attributed to him.
ANALYSIS
9. We have looked into the allegations levelled in the FIR. We tried to understand the nature of the allegations, more particularly, so far as the present appellant is concerned. It does not seem to be the case of the prosecution that the appellant herein uttered any word from his own mouth.
10. We shall fist proceed to examine whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act respectively are disclosed on a plain reading of the FIR and the chargesheet. The sections read as under:-
xxx
(r) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view;
(s) abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view;”
11. This Court in Shajan Skaria v. The State of Kerala & Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2249, laid down the ingredients to constitute
Insult and abuse by caste name – Intent with which abuses were hurled must be found to be denigrating towards caste, resulting into feeling of caste-based humiliation.
Cognizance under the SC/ST Act cannot be sustained if the informant is not a member of Scheduled Caste or if the involvement is merely circumstantial related to civil disputes.
Assault and abuse in public view – Public view is an essential ingredient to constitute offence under Section 3(1) (s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The court upheld that a prima facie case is sufficient for cognizance under the SC/ST Act, emphasizing that detailed evidence analysis is not required at this stage.
The judgment established the principle that for an offence under the SC/ST Act, insults or intimidations must be targeted at the victim because of their scheduled caste or tribe status, and the conte....
The court ruled that allegations of caste-based abuse in public view under the SC & ST Act cannot be quashed without trial, emphasizing the need for intent to humiliate linked to caste identity.
Section 3(1)(r) of the SC and ST Act makes it manifest that mere insult or intimidation with an intention to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe by itself is not made an offence.....
(1) Casteist abuses and criminal intimidation – Place of occurrence must be one “within public view” which is a sine qua non for making out offence under SC/ST Act.(2) Quashing of criminal case – Con....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
