The presence of an incident in public view suffices to establish an offence under the SC/ST Act, regardless of whether it was witnessed by the public.

Sheel Nagu, J.

1. The instant Criminal Appeal filed u/S. 14-A(2) of the SC &

ST Act assails the order dated 11/7/2016 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Gwalior (M.P.), framing charges against the appellants for commission of offences punishable u/Ss. 294, 452/34, 323/34, 506-B of I.P.C. and Secs. 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(v) of the SC & ST Act.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants for the purpose of challenge raised herein restricts his argument to the framing of charge punishable u/S. 3(1)(x) of the Act.

3. Brief facts giving rise to the present case are that on 16/2/2016, a written complaint was lodged by respondent No.2 with police that when he was working in Sunil Tyre Shop near Sanatan Dharma Mandir road, the owner of Jyoti Tyre shop, i.e. the appellants Rajesn Chhabra and Guruvachan Singh entered the shop and abused the respondent No.2 and threatened him of dire consequences of death to leave the shop. The said accused also assaulted the respondent No.2 with kick and fist blows causing minor injuries. Accordingly, on the report of the respondent No.2, crime was registered against the appellants. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the court having jurisdiction which by the impugned order has framed the charges (supra), which are under challenged in the present appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants in support of the challenge to the charge u/S. 3(1)(x) of the Act submits that the basic ingredients of the said offence are not made out and therefore trial court has committed jurisdictional error in framing the charge for the alleged offence against the petitioner.

5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the State supported the order and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.

7. Before examining the question whether on the allegations made in the FIR, prima facie offence punishable u/S. 3(1)(x) of Act is constituted against the petitioner or not, it is necessary to reproduce Section 3 (1)(x) of the Act, which reads as under :

“3. Punishments for offences of atrocities.-- (1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, --

(i) to (ix) ....

(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.

7.1 Thus, the basic ingredients for making out an offence under Section 3 (1)(x) of SC/ST Act, are:

(a) There must be an intentional insult or intimidation extended by person who is not a member of SC or ST community;

(b) Insult or intimidation must be with intent to humiliate SC/ST member.

(c) This insult or intimidation must be extended at any place within public view.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants has raised a seminal point that allegations and the circumstances attending the present case do not disclose that the incident in question took place in a place within public view.

8.1 The term “place within public view” obviously means that a place which can be seen without making any extra effort by members of the general public who frequent the public place.

8.2 The term “public view” in its linguistic sense connotes all that which is open and exposed to the gaze of members of public, who frequent a public place. The members of the public when without making any conscious effort of peeping, breaking into or climbing over the wall or undertaking any such additional physical activity are able to witness any place then it is obvious that the said place can safely be treated to be a place within public view.

For example, if a pedestrian walking on the pavement of a street has to scale a wall and witness any incident occurring behind the wall which is otherwise blocked to his normal