'Deity Doesn't Belong To Only A Few': Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash Case Over Denial Of Temple Entry Based On Family's Caste

The Karnataka High Court has observed that the deity in a temple cannot be imagined to be belonging to only a few. In refusing to quash criminal proceedings against eight persons accused of stopping a family from entering a place of worship and physically as well as verbally abusing the complainant, her husband and her child, a single bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna held,Worshipping of the deity, by entering into the temple, is to be given to one and all. Any kind of bigotry or discrimination is unacceptable. Although temples are seen to be symbols of unity and inclusivity, denial of rights of temple entry and worship, to persons belonging to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, still looms large.”The petitioners were charged under provisions of Sections 3(1)(10) and (11) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and Sections 506, 341, 504, 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 and 354(B) of the IPC on the basis of a complaint filed by Savithramma who stated that she, her husband, along with their child and others, had sought to visit the Gadi Chowdeshwari Temple in 2016 to witness special poojas which were being held on every full moon and new moon night. It was submitted by the complainant that when she and her family had approached the temple at around 9 am, the petitioners allegedly stopped and assaulted them while hurling abusive language concerning the complainant's family and their caste, describing how their visit to the temple had made it "unholy." A complaint was registered against the petitioners due to this exchange. After completion of the investigation, the police filed a chargesheet against the accused, following which the accused filed a discharge application before the trial court which was rejected. Subsequently they approached the court in the present proceedings to quash the criminal complaints registered against them. The petitioners argued that there are no ingredients that would become an offence under Section 3(1)(10) and (11) of the Act. Emphasising the fact that trial is now sought to be conducted on the provisions which have undergone an amendment with the corresponding provision being Section 3(1)(r) and (s) of the Act. Therefore, it is vitiated on account of non-application of mind. Moreover, even if it is accepted that abuses have been hurled, they have been hurled between the walls of the temple which would not become a public place or place of public view to attract the offence. The prosecution opposed such a plea arguing that the incident had taken place 7 years ago, pursuant to which, a chargesheet had also been filed immediately. It was argued that the petitioners had only preferred the present petition in the year 2023 and that there were seriously disputed questions of fact, which would require a full-blown trial for the petitioners to come out clean.On going through the case records the Bench noted that if the complaint and the charge sheet were read together, it would depict horrendous acts upon the petitioners. It further stated that a perusal of the statements of witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer including eyewitness accounts would clearly indicate offences having occurred. The complainant, in her Section 164 CrPC statement before the learned Magistrate, has narrated the incident as is narrated in the statement recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC,” it clarified. It added “The petitioners notwithstanding the aforesaid finding in the charge sheet and pretending to be innocent, seek their discharge from the array of accused. The concerned Court, appropriately recording cogent reasons, has rejected the application.” In further rejecting the contention of petitioners that no abuses had been hurled by them which would come under the purview of Section 3(1)(10) or (11)/ Section 3(1)(r) & (s) of the SCST Act, the Bench held that the mere fact that the SCST Act had undergone amendment during the pendency of these proceedings would not absolve the petitioners of their offences. It held that Section 3(1)(10) and (11) had merely been renumbered as Section 3(1)(r) & (s) of the Act, with the essence of the offence remaining unchanged. It was further held that for an offence to have taken place under Section 3(1) (r) an accused with an intention to insult a member belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe must hurl abuses in public. Section 3(1)(s) makes it an offence against an accused if the abuses are hurled with an intention to insult in a place of public view by taking the name of the caste. The abuses are to be hurled in a public place or a place of public view. Court thus noted that ingredients of both the aforesaid sections had been attracted in the present case, since the complainant and her family, belonging to a marginalised community, were insulted and stopped from entering the Temple. It was held that this was not a case where the petitioners did not know to which caste the complainant or her family belonged...

'Deity Doesn't Belong To Only A Few': Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash Case Over Denial Of Temple Entry Based On Family's Caste

Mustafa Plumber

Tags