Words like ‘Bhangi’, ‘Neech’, ‘Bhikhari’, ‘Mangani’ ('beggar, lowly person etc.) are not caste names and their use do not warrant charges under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act), held the Rajasthan High Court recently [Achal Singh & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.].
Justice Birendra Kumar made the observation while dropping SC/ST Act charges against four men (appellants/ petitioners) accused of using such words against certain public servants who had come to inspect and remove certain encroachments.
The Court observed that the words used did not contain any caste references nor did was there anything indicate that the petitioners intended to humiliate any public servant on the basis of their caste.
"The words used were not caste name nor there is allegation that the petitioners were known to the caste of the public servants, who had gone to remove the encroachments. Moreover, it is crystal clear on bare perusal of allegation that the petitioners were not intending to humiliate the (public servants) for the reason that they were members of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes rather act of the petitioners was in protest against the action of measurements being wrongly done by the public servants,” the Court said.
The case concerned an incident from January 2011, when certain officials, visited an area in Jaisalmer to inspect an alleged encroachment on public land. During the inspection, the petitioners allegedly obstructed the officials and verbally abused them with derogatory terms.
Consequently, a criminal case was registered against the petitioners under Sections 353 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty) , 332 (hurt to deter public servant), and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3(1)(X) of the SC/ST Act.
Although the police initially found the allegations unsubstantiated and submitted a negative report, a protest petition led to a trial court to eventually frame criminal charges against the petitioners. The accused petitioners then moved the High Court seeking to quash the case against them.
Counsel for the petitioners argued that the allegations lacked evidence to warrant a charge under Section 3(1)(X) of the SC/ST Act, which deals with an intentional insult or intimidation aimed at humiliating an SC/ST member in a public place.
The petitioners added that they were unaware of the informant’s caste, and that there were no independent witnesses present to confirm that the incident occurred in public view.
The Court found merit in these arguments, including that there were no independent witness to support the claim that the alleged incident took place in public view.
"In the case on hand, only the informant and its officials are witnesses of the incident, no independent witness has turned up to support that he was the witness of the incident," November 12 order noted.
Accordingly, the Court partially allowed the plea and discharged the petitioners from the SC/ST Act case.
However, the Court upheld the remaining charges under Sections 353 and 332 of the IPC, observing that there were sufficient grounds to proceed with the trial on these charges.
“While there is prima facie allegation that the petitioners obstructed in the official discharge of public duty by the respondent and therefore for that act of the petitioners, criminal prosecution would go on,” the Court said.
Advocate Leela Dhar Khatri represented the petitioners/ appellants, while Public Prosecutor Surendra Bishnoi appeared for the State.
[Read order]