Uttering Caste Names Like 'Adivasi', 'Santhal' To Humiliate Person In Public Can Constitute Offence Under SC/ST Act: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has held that abusing a person by calling them by their caste name, such as “Adivasi” or “Santhal”, in a place within public view, with the intent to humiliate, can amount to an offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta dismissed a criminal revision petition seeking quashing of proceedings under Sections 341, 323, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, observing that the allegations disclosed the essential ingredients of the offences and warranted a full-fledged trial. The Court clarified that at the quashing stage, it cannot conduct a roving inquiry into the truthfulness or reliability of the allegations, and that a trial is necessary to uncover the truth.The case arose from an FIR registered on May 16, 2022, on the basis of a complaint lodged by the de facto complainant, who alleged that he was intercepted by the accused persons near a graveyard in village Pathantuli while returning home. According to the complaint, the accused abused him by calling him “Adivasi” and “Santhal”, assaulted him with fists and blows, threatened to kill him, and attempted to hit him on the head with an iron rod. The complainant claimed that he was saved only when local people rushed to the spot, following which the accused fled. Upon completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed under Sections 341, 323, 506 and 34 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act.Seeking quashing of the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, the petitioner contended that the allegations under the SC/ST Act were false and fabricated. It was argued that there was no specific allegation of intentional humiliation on the basis of caste and that the FIR did not disclose that the incident took place in a “place within public view”, which is a mandatory requirement under the statute. The petitioner further pointed out that the medical documents showed only simple injuries, leading the Investigating Officer to drop Sections 325 and 307 IPC, which, according to him, indicated exaggeration and false implication. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's decisions in Swaran Singh v. State and Gorige Pentaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh.Opposing the plea, the State submitted that the FIR disclosed cognizable offences and that the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC corroborated the allegations. It was argued that the incident occurred near a village graveyard, which is a place within public view, and that there were eyewitnesses supporting the prosecution case. The State contended that sufficient materials existed to justify continuation of the proceedings.After examining the record, the High Court analysed the ingredients of Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act and relied upon the Supreme Court's rulings in Swaran Singh and Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand. The Court reiterated that for an offence under Section 3(1)(r), there must be intentional insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, and such act must occur in a place within public view. Similarly, for Section 3(1)(s), there must be abuse by caste name in a place within public view. The Court noted that the complainant had specifically alleged that he was abused by caste names and humiliated near a village graveyard, which would prima facie fall within the meaning of “place within public view”.The Court also clarified that a “place within public view” does not necessarily mean a public place owned by the government, and that even private places visible to the public may fall within the ambit of the provision, as held in Swaran Singh. Observing that the complainant had stated in his Section 164 CrPC statement that he felt humiliated when the accused referred to him as belonging to a lower caste, the Court found that the essential ingredients of the offence were prima facie made out.Emphasising the limited scope of interference at the quashing stage, the Court held that it could not assess the veracity of the allegations or the probative value of the evidence. It concluded that since the FIR and the materials collected during investigation disclosed prima facie offences, the petitioner must face trial. Accordingly, the revision petition was dismissed and all interim orders were vacated.Case Title: Suranjan Mandal @ Suranjoy Mandal v. State of West Bengal & Anr.Case No.: C.R.R. 240 of 2024Click here to read order

Uttering Caste Names Like 'Adivasi', 'Santhal' To Humiliate Person In Public Can Constitute Offence Under SC/ST Act: Calcutta High Court

Srinjoy Das

Tags