The insulting comments made to a person belonging to the recognized castes and tribes within the four walls of the house without witnesses does not constitute a crime, the Supreme Court said Thursday in dismissing the charges under the SC / ST Act against a man who allegedly he had abused a woman inside his building.
The higher court said that “all insults or intimidation of a person shall not constitute a crime under the SC / ST Law unless such insult or intimidation is due to the victim belonging to a recognized caste or tribe.”
He added that a crime would be committed under the SC / ST Law when a member of the vulnerable section of the Society is subjected to “indignities, humiliation and harassment” anywhere in public view.
A court of judges L Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta and Ajay Rastogi said: “In view of the facts, we find that the charges against the appellant under Section 3 (1) (r) of the Scheduled Tribes (Atrocity Prevention) Act , 1989 are not done. Consequently, the charge sheet is annulled to that extent. The appeal is resolved in the previous terms ”.
The court said that the FIR regarding other crimes against a Hitesh Verma will be tried by the competent courts in accordance with the law together with the criminal case, albeit initiated separately.
The court relied on its 2008 verdict and said that this Court had drawn a distinction between the term “public place” and “anywhere in public view”.
The higher court said it held that if an offense is committed outside the building, such as on a lawn outside a house, that can be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, then it would certainly be a place inside. from public view.
He said that according to the FIR, the allegations of abuse of the informant (woman) are within the four walls of her building and it is not the case that there was any member of the public (not merely family or friends) at the time of the incident in home.
“Therefore, the basic ingredient that the words were spoken ‘anywhere in public view’ is not understood,” the court said, adding that certain witnesses are mentioned on the charge sheet but cannot be said that those were the people present within the four walls of the building.
“It is alleged that the crime took place within the four walls of the building. Therefore, in view of the judgment of this Court in Swaran Singh (2008), it cannot be said that it is a place in public view, since it was said that there were none within the four walls of the building according to the FIR and / or the position. -sabana ”, it said.
Verma has challenged the Uttarakhand High Court order dismissing his request to vacate the charge sheet and summons.
According to the state government, the FIR was filed by the woman on December 11, 2019, as the event occurred on December 10, 2019 and the case was filed against Verma and others under various articles of the IPC and SC Law / ST.
He invoked the jurisdiction of the National High Court to challenge the indictment filed in the case against him and the hearing order. Verma’s lawyer argued that the disputes related to the property are pending before the Civil Court and that this FIR has been presented for evidently false reasons by defendant No. 2 (woman) only to harass the appellant and abuse the process Of law.
His lawyer further argued that the report does not reveal the caste of the informant nor the accusations are that they were made in public view and furthermore, the offensive words are not intended to be made for the reason that the informant is a person belonging to the Listed Caste. . .
The attorney for the State alleged that during the investigations, certain people supported the informant’s version that Verma and her family were usurpers of the woman’s lands. She pointed out that there is a dispute over the possession of the land that is the subject of a civil dispute between the parties according to the woman herself and due to the dispute, Verma and others did not allow her to cultivate the land for the past six months. .
The superior court said that since the matter relates to possession of property pending before the civil court, any dispute arising out of possession of such property will not reveal a crime under SC / ST law unless the victim is abused, intimidated or harassed. only for the reason that he belongs to the Programmed Caste or the Programmed Tribe.
.
