Back
2025 Supreme(Ker) 790
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S. SUDHA, J.
Viswamithran, S/o.Late K.Nanu - Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala - Respondents
Crl.A NO. 101 of 2025
Decided on : 20-03-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : B.MOHANLAL P.S.PREETHA ASWIN V. NAIR KARTHIK J SEKHAR ABIJITH M. AVANI NAIR JAYAPRABHA ARJUN PRAVEENA T.
For the Respondent: SRI.SASITH M R SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN, PP
IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the trial court's decision that the alleged abuse did not occur in public view, thus affirming the grant of pre-arrest bail under the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Headnote:
(A) Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(1)(s) - Pre-arrest bail - Appeal against trial court's order granting pre-arrest bail to the accused - Allegations of abuse and physical assault against a member of the Scheduled Caste - The trial court found no prima facie evidence of an offence under the Act, leading to the bail grant. (Paras 1 , 3 , 6 , 9 )
(B) Public View - The court examined whether the alleged offences occurred in public view, referencing prior case law to determine the definition of 'public view' - The presence of a colleague does not constitute 'public in general'. (Paras 5 , 6 )
Facts of the case:
The informant, a member of a political party, was allegedly assaulted and abused by the accused in the Panchayat President's office, with claims that the incident was not witnessed by the public. (Paras 3 , 4 )
Findings of Court:
The trial court's conclusion that no offence under the Act was made out was upheld, emphasizing the requirement of public view for the application of the Act. (Paras 6 , 9 )
Issues: The main issue was whether the allegations constituted an offence under the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, given the context of public view. (Paras 5 , 6 )
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the trial court's reasoning was sound, as the abuse did not occur within public view, thus affirming the bail grant. (Paras 6 , 9 )
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
(C.S. SUDHA, J.)
This appeal under Section 14A of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (the Act) has been filed by the informant/injured in crime no.1877/2024, Kundara police station, aggrieved by the order dated 31/12/2024 in Crl.M.P. No.381/2024 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (POA) Act Cases, Kottarakkara, by which the request for pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of BNSS by the 4th respondent/accused in the crime was allowed.
2. The appellant herein will be referred to as the informant/injured and the 4th respondent herein as the accused.
3. The prosecution case is that the informant/injured, a member of the Kerala Congress (M) District Committee, Kollam, along with Rajeev, another party worker, on 10/12/2024 between 10:30 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. went to the office of the Perayam Panchayat for enquiring about the permit for house construction. He met the Secretary of the Panchayat and made necessary enquiries and was coming out of the office of the Panchayat at which time, the accused through Rajeev called him to the room of the President. When he reached the office room of the President, the accused, a Christian, knowing that the informant/injured is a member of the Scheduled Caste abused him by calling obscene words and also by his caste name. The accused voluntarily caused hurt to him by jabbing him on his left chest with the key of a vehicle causing pain. The accused also pushed and hit him causing pain. When the informant/injured came out of the room, the accused followed him and again repeated the act of abuse and threatened him with dire consequences. Hence, as per Annexure A1 FIR, the accused is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 351(2), 296(b) BNSS and Section 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (the Act).
4. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the informant/injured that the offence under Section 3(1)(s) of the Act is clearly made out and so the bar under Sections 18 and 18A of the Act is attracted. In such circumstances, the finding of the trial court that no offence under the Act is attracted is apparently incorrect/wrong. This argument is supported by the learned Public Prosecutor also who submitted that the incident took place in the office room of the President of the Panchayat, which is a public place within public view and hence the offence under Section 3(1) (s) of the Act is made out.
4.1. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the accused that the alleged offence was not committed within public view and hence the trial court was right in holding that no offence under the Act is made out. That being the position, no interference into the impugned order is called for, goes the argument.
5. On going through the FIS in the CD file handed over to me during the course of arguments, the allegation is that the accused abused the informant/injured by calling him obscene words as well as his caste name. The place of occurrence is stated to be the office room of the President of the panchayat. The person who was present in the room apart from the accused is stated to be his colleague Rajeev, with whom the informant/injured had gone to the office of the Panchayat to make necessary enquiries. In this context, I refer to the dictum in Rabindra Kumar Chhatoi v. State of Odisha , 2024 KHC 8559 (SC) . In the said case, the appellant therein was alleged to have uttered words against the second respondent therein, a member of the scheduled caste within public view. The second respondent therein sought to repair her house which was situated adjacent to the appellant's house along with her labourers and went to the latter's house without seeking his prior permission, which was objected to by the appellant therein. The place of occurrence was at the backyard of the appellant's house. It was held that ba
