To convict under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act, the alleged insult must occur in a place 'within public view,' which was not established in this case.

JUDGMENT :

FARJAND ALI, J.

1. By way of the instant appeal, appellant has challenged the judgment of conviction and the sentence dated 19.09.1994 imposed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act Cases) No.3, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No.30/1994, whereby he has been convicted and sentenced as under:-

Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant has approached this Court seeking reversal of the findings recorded by the Trial Court.

2. The prosecution case, as unfolded from the impugned judgment, is that a report (Exhibit P-1) was lodged by the complainant Rajan Solanki on 22.08.1991, alleging that he was intentionally insulted, intimidated, and physically assaulted by the accused by referring to his caste. It was alleged that such conduct amounted to an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in addition to an offence under Section 323 IPC.

2.1. The background of the dispute, however, reveals that the complainant had purchased a Bajaj Kawasaki motorcycle from the appellant’s showroom on loan, which was financed by Bajaj Auto Finance Company Ltd., and had admittedly defaulted in repayment of the monthly instalments, with several cheques issued by him being dishonoured. Consequent to such default, the appellant demanded clearance of outstanding dues.

2.2. During this period, the motorcycle met with an accident and was brought to the appellant’s showroom for repairs. The repair work was duly carried out and the cost thereof was assessed at approximately Rs. 10,000/-. The complainant was asked to make payment and take delivery of the repaired vehicle. According to the prosecution, when the complainant went to collect the vehicle, he allegedly offered payment through a demand draft which was refused by the appellant, who instead insisted upon payment in cash or by cheque. It is further alleged that during this interaction, the appellant insulted the complainant by referring to his caste and physically pushed him out of the showroom.

2.3. Following investigation, a charge-sheet was filed for offences under Section 323 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act. The accused pleaded not guilty, and the trial proceeded. The prosecution examined seven witnesses and tendered documentary evidence, while the defence examined three witnesses and produced twelve documents. Upon culmination of trial, the learned Special Judge convicted the accused, leading to the present appeal.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have meticulously perused the entire material available on record. Upon a holistic evaluation of the evidence, it becomes manifest that the substratum of the dispute between the parties was purely contractual and commercial in nature, namely that of seller and customer. The complainant admittedly purchased the motorcycle from the appellant’s showroom in April 1990, and it stands proved on record that he defaulted in payment of the loan instalments. Several cheques issued by him were dishonoured, a fact not disputed during trial. In such circumstances, the appellant was legally justified in insisting upon clearance of outstanding dues.

3.1. More than a year after the purchase, the complainant brought the motorcycle to the appellant’s showroom for repairs following an accident. The repair work was duly carried out, and the appellant was legitimately entitled to demand payment towards labour charges and replacement of