Back
Eyewitnesses to SC/ST Act Abuse Must Be , AP High Court Rules
The has ruled that persons claiming to be eyewitnesses to caste-based abuse under the must be to satisfy the "" requirement. Justice K. Sreenivasa Reddy made the observation while quashing criminal proceedings against a Sub-Inspector and a Constable who were accused of insulting and threatening a Head Constable by caste name.
A to Disciplinary Action?
The case arose from a private complaint filed by Head Constable Y. Rammohan, who alleged that on , the two police officers abused him by caste name and threatened him with dire consequences. The complainant had been suspended on , after an inquiry found he was colluding with ganja traders and matka operators, sharing advance information of police raids. The suspension followed a report by the Inspector of Police based on information provided by the accused officers.
The complainant believed the officers were behind his suspension. On the day of the alleged incident, he confronted them, and the exchange allegedly turned into a casteist slur. However, the complaint was filed only on —20 days later—after the complainant claimed his earlier representations to higher authorities went unheeded.
The '' Requirement Under the SC/ST Act
The court emphasized that for an offence under and 3(1)(s) of the Act, the insult or intimidation must occur in a place "." Drawing from precedent, Justice Reddy held that this expression requires that public persons present be , with no close relationship or vested interest in any party.
In this case, the three witnesses cited by the complainant—C. Prasad, Ediga Jayamma, and Boya Shankar—had chequered histories, with multiple criminal cases registered against them, including offences under the , , and . The court noted their presence at the scene was improbable, as they were not residents of the area and had no reason to be there. None of them could be considered .
Chequered History of Eyewitnesses Raises Doubts
The judgment catalogued the antecedents: L.W.2 faced three criminal cases, L.W.3 had six cases, and L.W.4 had two cases, all prior to the incident. The court observed that such individuals could not be deemed impartial, and their testimony would not satisfy the "
" requirement.
"Persons having any kind of close relationship or association with the complainant would necessarily get excluded,"
the court noted, quoting the
's interpretation in
.
Delayed Complaint and Malicious Intent
The court also scrutinized the delay in filing the complaint. Despite being a police officer, the complainant chose to send a complaint by registered post rather than lodge an immediate FIR. The court found this conduct unnatural and indicative of a .
The proceedings were held to be
"
,
, and malicious
,"
falling squarely under category (7) of the
guidelines. The court concluded that the complaint was a to the disciplinary action and lacked any genuine basis.
Key Observations
"The Legislature required 'intention' as an essential ingredient for the offence of insult, intimidation and humiliation of a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in any place within '
'. Looking at the aims and objects of the Act, the expression '
' in
of the Act has to be interpreted to mean that the public persons present should be
and not interested in any of the parties."
"The present criminal proceeding is manifestly attended against the petitioners/A1 and A2 with a
and is
with an
for
on the petitioners/A1 and A2 and with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge."
Court's Decision
Allowing the criminal petition under , the High Court quashed the entire proceedings in SC/ST Sessions Case No. 2 of 2023 pending before the . The court held that continuing the case would be an . The interim stay granted earlier was made absolute, and all pending miscellaneous applications were closed.
The ruling reinforces that the SC/ST Act cannot be used as a weapon for ; courts must carefully examine the credibility of witnesses and the context of the complaint before taking cognizance.
