SC-ST Act| Intention To Humiliate Victim On Account Of Him/Her Belonging To SC-ST Community Is A Must To Implicate Accused: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court recently observed that to implicate an accused under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, what is necessary is that the offended words must have been used against the victim with intent to humiliate her/him because of her/him belonging to SC/ST community. The bench of Justice Sadhna Rani (Thakur) further clarified that merely because the victim belongs to the SC/ST community wouldn't be enough for implicating the accused persons under the 1989 Act unless it is shown that the intention to humiliate the victim on account of his/her caste was present in the facts of the case. With this, the Court set aside a cognizance order passed by the Special Judge SC/ST Act, Ghaziabad in a case under sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act.The case in brief Essentially, the Court was dealing with a criminal appeal filed by Seema Bharadwaj (accused-appellant) challenging the cognizance order of the Special Judge SC/ST Act, Ghaziabad in a case lodged against her over the allegations that she abused, hurled caste-based words and thrashed the first-informant/victim, who was working as house-help for the mother of the accused-appellant. It was the case of the victim that the appellant-accused used to quarrel with her mother and administer her wrong medicines forcibly, and she wanted the victim to leave the job so that she could execute her plans to take over the property of her mother. It was also alleged that the accused-appellant sent 5-6 unknown persons, who stopped the victim and her mother on the road and hurled wild abuses, and caste-based words against them and also gave them a threat not to work in the house of the mother of the accused. Before the Court, it was the contention of the appellant-accused that as per the allegations in the FIR, the appellant was not present on the spot at the time of the incident and therefore, whatever incident took place, which is said to have been committed by 5-6 unknown persons, she cannot be held responsible for the same. It was also contended that the brother of the appellant-accused had used the first informant as a tool to harass and pressure the appellant so that she could surrender her portion of the property in dispute in his favour. Therefore, it was contended that the impugned cognizance order was liable to be set set aside as no offence was made out against her.High Court's observations Taking note of the facts of the case, the Court, at the outset, observed that admittedly, at the time of the incident, the appellant-accused was not present on the spot and therefore, in her absence on the spot, cognizance under section 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and section 3(2) va of SC/ST Act cannot be taken against her. The Court further referred to the Supreme Court's 2020 ruling in the case of Hitesh Verma vs. the State of Uttarakhand and Another to note that the offence under the SC-ST Act is not established merely on the fact that the informant is a member of Scheduled Caste unless there is an intention to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for the reason that the victim belongs to such caste.The Court also read the FIR to note that the motive behind the incident was that the appellant did not want the first informant to work as a house help in her mother's house and hence, the Court opined, the incident did not take place because the first informant belonged to SC/ST community. Against this backdrop, the Court said that the order impugned indicated that the trial court had not used its judicial mind while passing the impugned order as the presence of the appellant on the spot is not shown by the first informant in the FIR. “So the cognizance under section 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act against the appellant is not possible. If the cognizance had been taken under section 120-B I.P.C. along with other sections then the position would have been different,” the Court added. Consequently, setting aside the cognisance order, the HC directed the trial court to pass a fresh order in this matter after going through the above discussion within two months. With this, the appeal was allowed. Appearances Counsel for Appellant: Nipun Singh, Vivek Chaubey Counsel for Respondent: G.A. Atharva Dixit Case title - Seema Bharadwaj vs. State of U.P. and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 427 [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7821 of 2023] Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 427 Click Here To Read/Download Order

SC-ST Act| Intention To Humiliate Victim On Account Of Him/Her Belonging To SC-ST Community Is A Must To Implicate Accused: Allahabad HC

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags