The court emphasized that for offences under the Atrocities Act, the alleged insult must occur in public view, which was not established in this case.

JUDGMENT :

(PER ROHIT W. JOSHI, J):-

1. The applicants, in the present matter, are arrayed as accused in First Information Report No. 0309 of 2022 registered with Shivaji Nagar Police Station, District Latur on 12.07.2022 for the offences punishable under sections 376, 376(2) (n), 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’ and ‘Atrocities’ Act, respectively, for the sake of brevity).

2. The principal accused in the matter is one Arafat Laikhkan Pathan against whom allegations in relation to Section 376 and 376(2)(n) of the IPC are leveled. The present applicants are relatives of accused No.1 Arafat. The allegations against them are pertaining to Section 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1) (s) and 3(2)(va) of the Atrocities (3) Act.

3. Respondent No.2 is the informant. She has alleged that she was running a garment shop in shop No. A-6 which was taken on rent from applicant No.7 (Dr. Khayyum Pathan). The adjoining shop was being run by accused No.1. She claims that over a period of time, she developed a relationship and bonding with accused No.1, who had promised to marry her and upon such promise had established physical relations with her and had repeated encounters of sexual intercourse with her, although, she opposed the same. She claims that she had also converted to Muslim religion in order to marry accused No.1. (She has qualified this statement in her supplementary statement saying that she intended to convert after marriage, however, all formalities were not completed). She then claims that accused No.1 got engaged with another lady and was about to marry her. She claims that on account of engagement of accused No.1 with another girl, there was discord in between her and accused No.1.

4. Accused No.1 is not a party to the present proceeding. The above history which is narrated in the First Information Report is quoted just to give a broad over view of the statement of the facts giving rise to the allegations made in the First (4) Information Report against the present applicants.

5. Respondent No.2 has claimed that on 01.07.2022, she had been to Teli Galli Latur for meeting accused No.1. She claims that applicant No.6 ( mother of accused No.1) applicant No.1 (sister of accused No.1), applicant No.2 (husband of applicant No.1), applicant No.4 (friend of accused No.1) and applicant No.3 (cousin of accused No.1) were present there. She has alleged that applicant No.6 (mother) had hurled abuses in the name of her caste stating that because of her caste background, she was not worthy or suitable to marry her son i.e. accused No.1. The allegations against applicant Nos. 1 to 4 are that they were also present at the spot of the incident and had hurled similar abuses at respondent No.2. She also alleges that accused No.1 and his mother (applicant No.6) so also the present applicant Nos. 1 to 4 had beaten her inflicting fist blows and kicks. These are the allegations in the First Information Report lodged by respondent No.2. It will be pertinent to mention here that the alleged incident had occurred on 01.07.2022 and First Information Report is lodged on 12.07.2022. Respondent No.2 has stated that the delay is due to death threat given to her by the persons named in the First Information Report.

6. The investigating agency has recorded supplementary statement of Respondent No.2 on 04.08.2022. In this statement, respondent No.2 has stated that applicant No.4 had asked her to come to Teli Gali in front of Sattar Tea House in order to return personal belongings of accused No.1 and accordingly she had been there at around 6.30 p.m. She alleges that accused No.1 and applicant Nos.1 to 4, 6 and 8 and one Chandpasha @ Babu Inamdar were present at the spot. In this supplementary statement, she has levelled further allegations against the applicant