No offence under SC/ST Act if caste abuse not in ‘public view’: Supreme Court

Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and N V Anjaria said that even a private place could qualify as being within public view if members of the public could witness the occurrence.

“The occurrence of the incident to become an offence under the SC/ST Act must have happened ‘in a place within public view’, is in a way, a principal requirement amongst the other ingredients,” the Supreme Court said on May 11, adding that incidents taking place “within the four corners of the wall” without public presence would not satisfy the statutory requirement under the SC/ST Act.

Dispute between family members

• The dispute stemmed from a conflict over family properties in Hari Nagar and Ramesh Nagar in Delhi.
• The complainant and the accused were closely related.
• Two of the accused were the complainant’s brothers, while the other accused were their wives.
• According to the First Information Report (FIR) registered at Kirti Nagar Police Station on January 30, 2021, the incident occurred two days earlier when the accused allegedly attempted to break open the lock of the complainant’s house.
• The complainant alleged that one of the women accused abused him and his wife using caste-based slurs, while the others threatened him.
• The complaint further alleged that similar insults had been occurring for over a year whenever visitors or friends came to the complainant’s house.
• Following the investigation, charges were framed in November 2022 by the additional sessions judge at Tis Hazari Court.
• The Delhi High Court later refused to interfere, observing that courts at the stage of framing charges are not expected to evaluate evidence or conduct a “mini trial.”

‘Public view’ mandatory ingredient

The Supreme Court, however, found the prosecution’s case fundamentally flawed. Undertaking a detailed analysis of Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, the bench held that the expression “in any place within public view” is not incidental but a mandatory ingredient of the offence.

While Section 3(1)(r) pertains to intentional insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view, Section 3(1)(s) deals with abusing any SC/ST person by caste name in any place within public view.

The court revisited earlier rulings, including Swaran Singh v State through Standing Counsel, Hitesh Verma v State of Uttarakhand and Karuppudayar v State represented by the deputy superintendent of police to explain the distinction between a “public place” and a place “within public view.”

The Supreme Court noted that even a private place could qualify as being within public view if outsiders or members of the public were capable of witnessing the occurrence.

But in the present case, the complaint itself indicated that the alleged incident took place inside a residential house.

“Once that is so, to suggest that the house place was not exposed to public eye or public gaze, a residential house in no way becomes ‘a place within public view’,” the Supreme Court judgment said.

Witness statements did not support prosecution

• The Supreme Court also examined the statements of witnesses named in the FIR and found that they did not establish that the alleged abuses were made in their presence.
• One witness merely stated that he had accompanied the complainant to the house, while another said he was present when the complainant tried to open the lock.
• Neither statement clearly supported the allegation that casteist remarks were made in public view.
• The Supreme Court said the FIR was silent on whether any outsiders or independent members of the public witnessed the incident.
• It further remarked that vague allegations regarding similar conduct over the previous year were too general and lacked the details necessary to constitute an offence.

FIR must disclose essential facts: SC

Emphasising the importance of the FIR in criminal proceedings, the Supreme Court said the complaint is the “first account” of the alleged incident and must itself reveal the basic ingredients of the offence.

Referring to the landmark ruling in State of Haryana v Bhajan Lal, the top court reiterated that if the contents of an FIR, taken at face value, fail to disclose a cognisable offence, the proceedings deserve to be quashed.

“It is trite principle that the FIR becomes liable in law to be quashed when it, in its bare reading, does not disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence alleged therein,” the top court said.

Holding that the requirement of “public view” is central to the offence under the law, the Supreme Court said the FIR in the case failed to disclose the essential ingredients necessary to sustain prosecution.

It said, “The other aspects namely ‘intentional insult or intimidation’ and ‘an intent to humiliate’, gathers a kind of intensity when the insult, intimidation, humiliation or abusive utterances, as the case may be, takes place in ‘a place within public view’, in the presence of members of the public.”

“It could thus be seen that, to be a place ‘within public view’, the place should be open where the members of the public can witness or hear the utterance made by the accused to the victim,” the Supreme Court said.

The court further described the requirement of “public view” as a “sine qua non” for offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act, observing that the element of humiliation gains seriousness when it occurs in the presence of the public.

No case of criminal intimidation either

• The Supreme Court also rejected the charge of criminal intimidation under IPC Section 506.
• It held that the complaint did not demonstrate any intention on the part of the accused to cause “alarm” to the complainant, which is an essential ingredient of the offence.
• Additionally, the court found no material to indicate any common intention among the accused to attract IPC Section 34.
• Subjecting the accused to criminal trial in such circumstances, it held, would amount to “abuse of the process of law.”
• The Supreme Court ultimately set aside the Delhi High Court judgment, the trial court’s orders framing charges, and quashed the FIR, the chargesheet, and all consequential proceedings.