Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
S. Muralidhar, CJ.
Jitray @ Jitray Majhi – Appellant
Versus
Girish Chandra Mohanta & Anr. – Respondents
CRLMC No. 1292 of 2017
Decided On : 09-12-2022
SC and ST (POA) Act - Intentional Insult or Intimidation - The court declined to interfere with the order of not taking cognizance against the accused for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC and ST (POA) Act, 1989, as it found that the words allegedly uttered by the accused were not with an intention to insult or intimidate the complainant for being a member of the ST.
Fact of the Case:
The court was presented with a petition challenging an order declining to interfere with an order of not taking cognizance against the accused for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC and ST (POA) Act, 1989.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the conclusion of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) that there was nothing in the statement with an intention to insult or intimidate the complainant for being a member of the ST was plausible, and therefore declined to interfere with the impugned order.
Issues: The issue was whether the accused's words were with an intention to insult or intimidate the complainant for being a member of the ST, as required under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC and ST (POA) Act, 1989.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the relevant legal provision, which required the intentional insult or intimidation of a member of the SC or ST, and found that the accused's words did not meet this requirement.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the interim order passed earlier was vacated.
JUDGMENT
Dr. S. Muralidhar, CJ. - The challenge in the present petition is to an order dated 20th January, 2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), Karanjia in Criminal Revision No.11 of 2013 declining to interfere with an order dated 6th December, 2012 passed by the S.D.J.M., Karanjia in not taking cognizance against the Opposite Party-Accused for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC and ST (POA) Act, 1989.
2. As noticed by the learned ASJ under 3(1)(x) of the SC and ST (POA) Act whoever not being a member of Schedule Caste (SC) or a Schedule Tribe (ST) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of SC or a ST in any place within the public view, is liable to be punished. The relevant portion of the impugned order in this regard reads as under:
'It is alleged by the complainant that the accused scolded him in un-parliamentary language pointing to his tribe. While recording his statement U/s.200 Cr.P.C. he has only stated that the accused started abusing him by saying Maagiha Sala Adivasi Majhi etc. The witnesses Kailash Chandra Patra and Arjun Mohanta have stated that the accused abused the post master saying 'Majhi Sala Tote Kie Chakiri Dela' etc. The witnesses namely Rasmi Ranjan Mohanty, Sudam Charan Barik and Umesh Chandra Mohanta have not stated anything about any such utterance by the accused. There is nothing in the statement of the complainant recorded U/s. 200 Cr.P.C. that the words allegedly uttered by the accused was with an intention to insult or intimidate him being a member of Schedule Tribe. The Hon'ble High Court of Allhabad in of Pappu Singh Vrs State of U.P.: (2002) Crl. J. 1251 (Allhabad) has held that the simply addressing a person by his caste without any intention to insult or intimidate does not constitute the offence under the said section.'
3. While learned counsel for the Petitioner kept reading the relevant line from the FIR, it is plain that what two of the witnesses stated was different as has been extracted by the learned ASJ in the above paragraph. It appears that the conclusion of the learned ASJ that there is nothing in the said statement which could be said to be with an intention to insult or intimidate the complainant for being a member of the ST, is a plausible one.
4. Consequently, the Court is not persuaded to interfere with the impugned order of the learned ASJ. The petition is dismissed. The interim order passed earlier stands vacated. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Court below forthwith.
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 Sect....
Insults must be targeted at a victim's Scheduled Caste or Tribe status to constitute an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act.
The court affirmed that a solitary credible witness's testimony can suffice to establish a prima facie case under the SC/ST (PoA) Act, 2018.
Omission of caste insult in initial police intimation does not vitiate SC/ST (POA) Act proceedings if substantiated later.
Allegations under the SC/ST Act require intentional insult or intimidation in public view; dismissal of revision upholds trial due to sufficient prima facie evidence.
Section 3(1)(r) of the SC and ST Act makes it manifest that mere insult or intimidation with an intention to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe by itself is not made an offence.....
Mere allegations without evidence of public view do not constitute an offence under the SC/ST Act unless insults target caste identity in a public context.
Sufficient evidence must link alleged acts to an intent to humiliate based on caste identity for the application of the SC/ST Act.
The burden on the prosecution to establish that the accused does not belong to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe does not necessarily require the mention of the accused's caste in the FIR. The inte....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
