IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA MONDAY, THE 27^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 7TH MAGHA, 1946 CRL.A NO. 2167 OF 2024 CRIME NO.207/2023 OF MANJERI POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02.11.2024 IN SC NO.498 OF 2023 OF SPECIAL COURT FOR SC/ST PoA ACT CASES, MANJERI APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

ALAVI AGED 43 YEARS, S/O BEERAN, MANNOLI HOUSE PULPATTA P.O, PUKALATHUR, MALAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673642 BY ADV SOJAN MICHEAL RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI, PIN - 682031

2 MANOJ KUMAR S/O BALAN, KUNNIKAL HOUSE, PUKKALATHUR, PULPATTA P.O, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT THE HOUSE OF POKER HAJI, MALAPPURAM THRIPPANCHI LIBRARY ROAD, PIN - 673642 BY ADV T.U.SUJITH KUMAR SMT.SHEEBA THOMAS, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22.01.2025, THE COURT ON 27.01.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

C.S.SUDHA, J.

---------------------------------------------

Crl.Appeal No.2167 of 2024 ---------------------------------------------

Dated this the 27^th day of January 2025

J U D G M E N T

This appeal under Section 14A of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (the Act) has been filed by the petitioner/sole accused in S.C.No.498/2023 on the file of the Special Court for SC/ST (PoA) Act and NDPS Act Cases, Manjeri, aggrieved by the order dated 02/11/2024 in Crl.M.P.No.1/2024 filed under Section 227 Cr.P.C. for discharge, which has been dismissed. As per the final report, the appellant/accused is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 323 IPC and Section 3(1)(s)

and Section 3(2)(va) of the Act.

2. The prosecution case is that while CW1/the victim (the second respondent herein) was talking to CW4, his landlord standing adjacent to his kitchen, the accused who is the brother of CW4 abused the former by calling him by his caste name and kicked him. The accused is also alleged to have blocked the way to the house of CW1 preventing him from plying his autorickshaw through the road leading to his house. Hence the appellant/accused is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under the aforementioned sections. The application moved for discharge was dismissed by the trial court holding that prima facie the offences alleged against him are made out.

3. CW1/the second respondent herein entered appearance through Advocate T.U.Sujith Kumar.

4. Heard both sides.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused that the alleged abuse took place within the courtyard of the house of CW4, which was not within public view and therefore the offence under Section 3(1)(s) of the Act is not made out. He relied on the dictum in Rabindra Kumar Chhatoi v. State of Odisha, 2024 KHC 8559(SC) in support of his argument. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned counsel for CW1/the second respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor that CW2 and CW4, who are not the relatives of CW1 were very much present when the incident took place. The abuse therefore took place within public view and hence the offence under Section 3(1)(s) of the Act as well as the other offences are made out. Hence, the appellant is not entitled to a discharge as prayed for.

6. In Rabindra Kumar Chhatoi (Supra), the appellant therein was alleged to have uttered words against the second respondent therein, a member of the scheduled caste within public view. The second respondent therein sought to repair her house which was situated adjacent to the appellant's house along with her labourers and went to the latter's house without seeking his prior permission, which was objected to by the appellant therein. The place of occurrence was at the backyard of the appellant's house. It was held that backyard of a private house cannot be within public view. The persons who accompanied the second respondent were her employees or the labour force she had engaged for the purpose of ca