The status of a location as a private dwelling does not preclude it from being considered a place within public view if the public is present or able to witness or hear the abusive acts at the time of the occurrence.

JUDGMENT :

A.BADHARUDEEN, J.

This appeal has been filed at the instance of the sole accused in S.C. No. 807/2025 pending before the files of the Special Court under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act [hereinafter referred as ‘SC/ST (POA) Act’ for short], 1989, Kottarakara challenging order in Crl.M.P. No. 1/2026 dated 21.02.2026.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused and the learned Public Prosecutor. Even though notice served upon the second respondent through the Station House Officer, she did not appear.

3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused that, in this matter, the ingredients for the offences punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code [hereinafter referred as ‘IPC’, for short], as well as under Sections 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, are not made out prima facie and, in such circumstances, the police, after investigation, filed a refer report. However, when a protest complaint vide, Crl.M.P.No.9/2025 had been filed before the Special Judge, the court, on perusal of the prosecution records, including the statements of the witnesses recorded, found prima facie that offences under of the , as well as under Sections 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, were made out and accordingly, cognizance for the said offences were taken.

4. Repelling his contention, it is argued by the learned Public Prosecutor that, on perusal of the order impugned and the statements of witnesses, the finding of the Special Court to the effect that the appellant/accused committed offences under Section 506 of the IPC, as well as under Sections 3(1)(s), 3(1) (w)(i) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, prima facie is only to be justified, and in that view of the matter, the discharge petition would necessarily fail.

5. On perusal of the materials available on par with the observations made by the learned Special Judge in paragraph No. 4 of the impugned order, it could be seen that, even though a final report was filed by the police, in support of the appellant/accused, the learned Special Judge, while considering Crl.M.P.No.9/2025, found from the statements of the witnesses, that the offences are made out, prima facie to proceed further. Accordingly, the learned Special Judge took cognizance for the said offences.

6. It is discernible from the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused that the main reason for contending that none of the offences are made out is based on the fact that the occurrence took place inside the residence of the complainant, which is not a public place within public view. However, in the order impugned, the learned Special Judge addressed this issue and found that, even though the place of occurrence is the house of the appellant/accused, other persons, including, CW4 were present, at the time of the occurrence, to make the place of occurrence as a place within public view.

7. In this context, it is relevant to note that merely because a place is a private place or is a dwelling house of a person, that by itself is not sufficient to hold the said place is not a place within public view, for the purpose of the provisions of the SC/ST (POA) Act, when, at the time of occurrence or at the time of commission of the offence, public were available to see the occurrence even in a private place. So, the presence of the public to witness the occurrence or hear the abusive words, even in a private place, would make such a private place within public view for the purposes of SC/ST (POA