The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of the requisite mens rea to intentionally insult or intimidate a person of SC or ST to humiliate him within public view under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC&ST (PoA) Act.

JUDGMENT

1. Instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is at the behest of the petitioner assailing the impugned order dated 5th August, 2013 passed in S.C. No.52 of 2013 by the learned Sessions Judge, Sonepur whereby charge under Sections 294, 323 and 506 IPC besides Section 3(1)(x) SC&ST (PoA) Act was framed against him on the grounds inter alia that no case is made out for any of the offences including under the special Act and it is liable to be quashed in the interest of justice so also the charge framed thereunder.

2. An FIR was lodged by the informant, consequent upon which, Tarva P.S. Case No.96 dated 6th December, 2012 was registered under the alleged offences, which finally led to the submission of chargesheet later to which the learned Sessions court passed the impugned order (Annexure-2) which, according to the petitioner, is unjustified as none of the offences was made out even by considering the materials on record.

3. Heard Mr. R.K.Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.S. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the State. None represents opposite party No.2.

4. Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the court below framed charge mechanically which is erroneous, illegal and against the weight of evidence on record. It is further submitted by Mr. Mohapatra that the ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) of the SC&ST (PoA) Act are not satisfied and hence, the charge for the said offence cannot be sustained in law. It is contended that even by assuming for the sake of argument that during the alleged incident, the informant was abused by taking name of his caste that by itself does not make out an offence Section 3(1)(x) of the SC& ST (PoA) Act since the intention should be to insult or intimidate a person he being a member of Scheduled Caste(SC) or Scheduled Tribe(ST). While advancing such an argument, the decision of the Apex Court in Hitesh Verma Vrs. The State of Uttarakhand and Another reported in (2021) 81 OCR (SC) 241 has been placed reliance on by Mr. Mohapatra.

5. On the contrary, learned counsel for the State-opposite party No.1 would submit that the learned special court did not commit any error in taking cognizance of the offences and framing charge by the impugned order under Annexure-2 since the FIR and materials furnished along with chargesheet do make out a case against the petitioner.

6. The alleged incident stands described in FIR (Annexure-1). As per the allegations, the incident happened on 6th December, 2012 while labour work was in progress at the spot and at that moment, the petitioner said to have abused the informant since on account of noise during such work, the cattle got alarmed which annoyed him and in course of events, abused and assaulted the latter by means of a stick. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the alleged overt act was committed suddenly without any intention to insult or humiliate the informant by making aspersion to his caste, however, the learned special court framed charge under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act which is not tenable in law. It is further submitted that the other offences have also not been proved from the materials on record which is opposed to by the learned counsel for the State.

7. On a reading of the FIR (Anneuxre-1), the Court finds that the informant was assaulted by the petitioner. It is claimed by the informant that the petitioner also abused him by taking name of his caste. It is further stated that as a result of the assault, the informant lost his sense. According to the petitioner the alleged incident has been exaggerated by the informant as the incident did not take such an ugly turn which is being claimed. According to the Court, the truthfulness or otherwise of the claim of the informant requires examination which can only be determined during trial. Considering the FIR and chargesheet, it would not be wrong to hold that there is a prima facie case made out as the informant was abused, assaulted a