CAUSE TITLE:
Ramesh Chandra Vaishya V The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
DATE OF ORDER:
19-05-2023
JUDGE(S):
S.RAVINDRA BHAT,DIPANKAR DATTA
PARTIES:
Petitioner: Ramesh Chandra Vaishya
Respondent: The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
SUBJECT
In a case involving the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act of 1989, the Supreme Court stated that it is preferable that utterances made by an accused in public view be detailed at least in the charge sheet before the person is subjected to trial under a provision of the Act.
FACTS
- In this case, an incident happened in 2016 in which the appellant got into a fight with the second respondent over water drainage. The complainant and his family members were allegedly subjected to caste-related insults by the appellant throughout the argument. In addition, the appellant hurt the plaintiff severely by assaulting her.
- Sections 323, 504 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act were used to charge the appellant. The charge sheet was filed the day after the FIR was registered by the investigating officer.
ANALYSIS OF COURT
- The Bench noted, "It is desired that, if not in the F.I.R., the comments made by an accused in any place in public view be described prior to his being put on trial for alleged commission of an offence under section 3(1)(x).(which is not required to be an encyclopaedia of all facts and events), at least in the charge-sheet (which is prepared on the basis of either statements of witnesses recorded in course of investigation or otherwise) so as to enable the court to determine if the charge sheet establishes that an offence under the SC/ST Act was committed for having a reasonable opinion in the context of the matter at hand before taking cognizance of the offence.
- Before taking cognizance of the offence, the courts would be able to determine whether the charge sheet establishes a case under the SC/ST Act, the Court concluded.
- The Supreme Court was hearing a case in which a person was accused of violating several laws, including section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act, which prohibits intentionally insulting or intimidating a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in a public setting.
- The Bench stated, "Such insult or intimidation wouldn't be sufficient to an offence under section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act, save, of course, where such insult or intimidation is directed at the victim because he is a member of a certain Scheduled Caste or Tribe.It is apparent that using abusive or derogatory words with the intent to offend or humiliate someone else constitutes calling them an idiot (bewaqoof), a stupid (murkh), or a thief (chor).Even if the statements are intended to a person who is a member of a Scheduled Caste or Tribe in general, they may not be sufficient to trigger section 3(1)(x) unless they are laced with casteist remarks."
- According to the prosecution's case, the appellant got into an argument with the complainant in January 2016 over water drainage, and it was alleged that the appellant verbally abused the complainant and his family members, as well as assaulted him.
- The Court further stated that Section 18 of the SC/ST Act prohibits using the court's jurisdiction under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which deals with instruction for grant of bail to anyone apprehending arrest, and that the law takes precedence over other laws.
- The Court, while quashing the criminal proceedings against the accused, noted that neither the FIR nor the charge sheet submitted against him mentioned the presence of anyone other than the accused, the complainant, and his two family members at the scene of the crime.
- The Bench observed that because the appellant's statements, if any, were not uttered "in any place within public view," the basic ingredient for triggering section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act was lacking or absent.
- Except for the allegation that caste-related slurs were hurled, the Bench noted that the FIR and charge sheet contained no reference to the appellant's remarks during the course of the verbal argument or to the caste to which the complainant belonged.
- The appellant had moved the High Court, requesting that the criminal proceedings be quashed on the grounds that the charge sheet revealed no offence and that the prosecution was initiated with the intent to harass.
- "Completing an investigation in a day in some cases could be appreciated, but in this case it has done more harm to the cause of justice than good,"the Bench observed in overturning the High Court's decision.
