Back
2024 Supreme(UK) 377
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Ravindra Maithani, J.
Rajendra - Revisionist
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others - Respondents
Criminal Revision No.186 of 2024
Decided On : 14-03-2024
For the Revisionist :Mr. D.N. Sharma and Ms. Manju Bahuguna, Advocates
For the Respondent: Mr. Virendra Singh Rawat, A.G.A. with Ms. Rangoli Purohit, Brief Holder
IMPORTANT POINT
Intent to humiliate based on caste identity is essential for establishing an offense under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Headnote:
Atrocities - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act - Sections 3(r) - The court interpreted the provisions of the Act, emphasizing that mere use of caste-related remarks does not constitute an offense unless there is intent to humiliate based on caste identity.
Fact of the Case:
The revisionist filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against private respondents for illegal occupation of land designated for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, claiming abuse and threats from them.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations did not establish an offense under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, as the remarks were not made with the intent to humiliate based on caste.
Issues: Whether the allegations made by the revisionist constituted an offense under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that for an offense under the Act to be made out, there must be an intention to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, which was not present in this case.
Result: The revision is dismissed in limine.
JUDGMENT :
Ravindra Maithani, J.
Instant revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated 11.01.2024, passed in Misc. Case No.372 of 2023, Rajendra Vs. Ram Swaroop and others, by the court of Special Sessions Judge, District Udham Singh Nagar (for short, “case”). By it, an application filed by the revisionist under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”) has been rejected.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. The revisionist moved an application against the private respondents for removal of their illegal occupation on a land specially ear marked for the persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Due to this reason, the application records that the private respondents were inimical towards the revisionist and on 26.05.2023 at 09:00 the revisionist was abused with Caste coloured remarks, as to how dare he complained against the private respondents for vacating the Government land. The application records that the revisionist was threatened to life and he was also threatened that he may be falsely implicated in some cases. The application is quite in detail. The Special Judge, Udham Singh Nagar called a report from Police Station. The report of police station states that no case was lodged on the application of the revisionist. According to the police report, the parties were in dispute with regard to a property and no such incident took place. After considering the entire factual aspects, the special court rejected the application under Section 156(3) of the Code.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist would submit that perusal of the application under Section 156(3) of the Code filed by the revisionist reveals that an offence under the provisions of The Scheduled Castes And The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (“the Act”) is made out. He would submit that the Caste coloured remarks were used and the revisionist was abused by the private respondents. He would refer to Section 3(r) of the Act, which reads as follows:-
“3. Punishments for offences of atrocities …………………………………………………………………………
(r) 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. It may be noted that in the application under Section 156(3) of the Code, filed by the revisionist, it is also recorded that based on a report given by the private respondents police has lodged the proceedings under Sections 107/116 of the Code against the wife of the revisionist and his brother.
6. In every case whenever Caste coloured words are used, it does not attract the provisions of the Act. In the case of Khuman Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2020)18 SCC 763, the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed these aspects and in para 14 observed as follows:-
“14. As held by the Supreme Court, the offence must be such so as to attract the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act. The offence must have been committed against the person on the ground that such person is a member of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. In the present case, the fact that the deceased was belonging to “Khangar”— Scheduled Caste is not disputed. There is no evidence to show that the offence was committed only on the ground that the victim was a member of the Scheduled Caste and therefore, the conviction of the appellant-accused under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not sustainable.”
7. The law on this point has further been discussed by the Hob’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hitesh Verma vs. State of Uttarakhand and another, (2020)10 SCC 710. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that unless there is an intention to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for the reason that the victim belongs to such caste, offence under the Act is not made out. In para 18 of the judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows:-
“18. Therefor
