Supreme Court Quashes Accused in SC/ST Act Case Due to Lack of Public View Element. Essential Ingredient of 'Public View' Under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Not Satisfied as Incident Occurred in Enclosed School Room.

Case Note & Summary

The Supreme Court considered an appeal by Ramkrishna Chauhan, manager of a school, against the judgment of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 10 April 2023, which dismissed his criminal appeal under Section 14A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and declined to interfere with the summoning order dated 8 August 2022 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, in Sessions Case No. 642 of 2022. The dispute arose from FIR No. 37 of 2020 lodged by respondent No.2 on 25 January 2020 against the appellant and co-accused for offences under Sections 147, 323, 342 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act. The prosecution alleged that on 24 January 2020, the sons of respondent No.2, who studied at the school where the appellant was manager, were involved in a quarrel; when respondent No.2 approached the appellant, the appellant and school staff abused and assaulted him with lathis, sticks and fists, and used caste-based abuses. The chargesheet was filed on 17 March 2020. The Special Judge took cognizance on 8 August 2022. The appellant challenged this before the High Court, which dismissed the appeal, holding that the mere fact that the case was a counterblast could not quash the proceedings and that a prima facie case was made out on the FIR and witness statements. There was also a cross FIR lodged by the appellant's wife against respondent No.2. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that the High Court erred in finding public view because the site plan dated 25 February 2020 identified the place of occurrence as room 'A', which was enclosed and had no window or public access; the witnesses' statements did not establish their presence inside the room; and the FIR did not attribute specific caste-based words to the appellant. The respondent-State supported the impugned judgment, contending that the incident occurred within public view and that at the cognizance stage the court had only to consider the FIR, chargesheet and material collected during investigation to determine a prima facie case. The Court reproduced Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, which require intentional insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, or abusing such person by caste name, in any place within public view. Relying on Karuppudayar v. State and Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, the Court held that to be within public view, the place must be open where members of the public could witness or hear the utterance; if the alleged offence takes place within the four corners of a wall where members of the public are not present, it cannot be said to have taken place within public view. Applying this principle, the Court found that the FIR did not state that caste-based abuses were uttered in the presence or hearing of the public; the incident was alleged to have occurred inside a room in the school; the site plan identified the place as room 'A'; and the room was enclosed with no window or public access. The Court also noted that neither the FIR nor the respondent No.2's statement attributed specific caste-based words or slurs to the appellant, and the allegation remained general. The statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 of four private witnesses—all teachers—showed that respondent No.2 came to the school office and a quarrel and scuffle took place, but none stated they were present inside the office when caste-based abuses were uttered or heard such words; their mere presence in the school premises did not establish public view. The Court held that while at the stage of cognizance meticulous appreciation of evidence is not required, the basic ingredients of the offence must emerge from the material placed before the court. The essential requirement of public view was not borne out. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and quashed the proceedings arising out of FIR No. 37 of 2020 insofar as they related to offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act against the appellant. The proceedings were to continue for the remaining offences under the Indian Penal Code.

Headnote

Issue of Consideration

Final Decision

Appeal allowed. High Court judgment set aside. Summoning order and proceedings insofar as they relate to offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act against appellant quashed. Proceedings continue for remaining offences under IPC.

Law Points