A special court in Maharashtra recently convicted a retired police department employee and his wife for insulting a housing society chairman in Vikhroli by passing casteist remarks in 2010, and sentenced them to six months in jail. The special court under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act found Gajendra Kadam and Shraddha Kadam guilty under Section 3(1)(r) of the law (intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view). They were also ordered to pay a fine of Rs 5,000, and their sentence was suspended to give them time to file an appeal. The chairman of the housing society in Vikhroli filed the complaint in the case. On February 14, 2010, during a meeting in the society, the accused allegedly barged in and insulted him, while making remarks about his caste. Both the accused denied making the remarks and submitted that a closed-door housing society meeting cannot be considered "within public view" to find them guilty under the provisions of the Act. “It is to be hereby stated that the remarks made are inside the building, where some members of the public were present. They are not the relatives and the friends of the complainant, but the members of the housing society. Hence, the offence would be in public view as contemplated by Honourable Supreme Court…,” the special court said in the order passed on October 4, made public Tuesday, October 14. It was submitted before the court that the society where the incident took place was formed to rehabilitate slum areas and included 104 members. Some of the rooms were declared dilapidated and a discussion was ongoing in the building on the need for redevelopment. The court was told that a dispute arose between the accused and the complainant over this. While the complainant said the accused did not reside in the society and that society members objected to his attempts to get a developer without approval, the accused claimed that the complainant had misappropriated funds as the society chairman. Court finds reason for delay in filing FIR satisfactory The accused also raised the issue of the delay in filing the FIR, stating that the alleged incident occurred on February 14, 2010, but the FIR was filed two months later, on April 30, 2010. The complainant told the court that the accused had threatened him in the meeting, stating that he was working with the police department and was posted in the state secretariat. The court said the complainant explained the delay, stating that he was apprehensive about the police filing an FIR against a member of the police department. He wrote to the Home Department, which then forwarded the complaint to the zonal deputy commissioner for investigation, leading to the FIR. The court also said that while the accused had claimed that they were not present in the meeting and there were no independent witnesses, nor any mention in the minutes of the meeting, the court held that there was proof to show that they had entered the meeting and made the remarks, in the form of witnesses. The court noted that no additional evidence was presented by the accused to prove their absence. --
