Hon’ble Ajit Kumar, J.—Heard learned counsel for the revision-applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the records.

2. This revision is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 14.11.2003 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kannauj in Sessions Trial No. 51 of 2003, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(X) Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 P.S. Chhibramau, District Kannauj.

3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the revision-application that the Court below wrongly placed reliance on an earlier alleged compromise before the Judicial Magistrate while the case was committed to sessions to be tried by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act).

4. Having gone to the judgment, I find that the Court below has not tried to case as Special Judge E.C. Act only the basis of compromise in question. The Court below has recorded independent finding considering the facts and evidence adduced and concluded that the offence in question was not made out. In order to appreciate the findings returned by the Court below, especially relating to the offence punishable under SC/ST Act, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions attracted in the present case i.e. 3(1)(X) Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which reads as under:

“(1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,—

(x) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view."

5. From the bare perusal of the provisions as quoted hereinabove, it is explicit that object behind provision to make it penal is to protect the person of such caste from any humiliation in public as they have already suffered it for centuries in the past. The basic requirement is firstly, not to address in an abusive way indicating the caste and secondly, such person should not be humiliated in public. Considering the history of the caste structured society in this country, where a person belonging to such caste were humiliated inspite of protection given under the constitution to bring them into the main-stream and to remove untouchability, law got developed and it is in this process in order to remove this social evil from the society, this penal provision (supra) was enacted but such penal provision is required to be understood and interpreted in its letter and spirit and not just because somebody is addressed indicating his caste such an act should be taken as an intentional insult to bring the act within the definition of offence punishable under the Act, 1989.

Explaining away the provision, the supreme Court in the case of Swaran Singh and others v. State through Standing Counsel and another, (2008) 8 SCC 435, vide 23 and 24 has held thus:

23. This is the age of democracy and equality. No people or community should be today insulted or looked down upon, and nobody’s feelings should be hurt. This is also the spirit of our Constitution and is part of its basic features. Hence, in our opinion, the so-called upper castes and OBCs should not use the word ‘Chamar’ when addressing a member of the Scheduled Caste, even if that person in fact belongs to the ‘Chamar’ caste, because use of such a word will hurt his feelings. In such a country like ours with so much diversity - so many religions, castes, ethnic and lingual groups, etc. - all communities and groups must be treated with respect, and no one should be looked down upon as an inferior. That is the only way we can keep our country united.

24. In our opinion, calling a member of the Scheduled Caste ‘Chamar’ with intent to insult or humiliate him in a place within public view is certainly an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. Whether there was intent to insult or humiliate by using the word ‘Chamar’ will of course depend on the context in which it was used.

6. However, firstly it has to be ensured whether uttera