Caste Abuse Inside Closed Shop Not In 'Public View': Rajasthan High Court Sets Aside 31-Year-Old SC/ST Act Conviction

The Rajasthan High Court allowed an appeal against a 1994 conviction of a seller under the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (“the Act”) who allegedly abused a purchaser based on his caste, opining that caste based abuse inside the four walls of a closed showroom did not fulfill the essential ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act.The bench of Justice Farjand Ali observed that the expression “in any place within the public view” in the provision meant that the alleged insult must have occurred at a place where it was capable of being witnessed by members of public other than the complainant and the accused. “This Court reiterates, with emphasis, that the textual and purposive interpretation of Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, mandates that the alleged act must occur at a place “within public view”, a locus so situated or exposed that the conduct in question is capable of being observed, perceived or witnessed by members of the general public. The statutory phrase imports an objective criterion of public visibility: it is not satisfied by the mere presence of more than one person or by a private exchange between individuals, but by the availability of the scene to public observation and scrutiny.”The complainant had purchased a bike from the appellant's showroom on loan, for which the payment was done via cheques which eventually were dishonoured. One year later, the bike met with an accident, which was duly repaired by the appellant. However, when the complainant went to collect the bike and sought to make the outstanding payment via a demand draft, it was rejected by the appellant. As alleged by the complainant, this led to altercation between them followed by caste-based abuse by the appellant as well as physical assault, which led to filing of this complaint. Subsequently, the appellant was convicted. Aggrieved by the conviction, the appeal was filed before the Court. After hearing the contentions, the Court highlighted the fact that prosecution did not prove presence of any independent public members at the relevant time or place of the incident. Rather, it was asserted that the incident took place inside the appellant's shop. In this background, the Court held that the essence and legislative utility of the provision was to curb the caste-based humiliation in the public domain. “…character of the alleged conduct must be assessed against this spatial precondition. Allegations of humiliation or intimidation, however grave, acquire the statutory complexion contemplated by Section 3(1)(x) only when they are perpetrated in a setting where the public at large could witness or be made aware of them contemporaneously. Where the asserted acts are confined to a private interior, the four corners of the room, the requisite nexus with public visibility is absent, and the act remains a private wrong cognisable, if at all, under other provisions of law.”The Court stated that the present matter denoted a spatially confined and enclosed environment. Such conduct, locked within four walls of a private commercial establishment fell outside the ambit of public vista, and lacked the essential element of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. It was further observed that there was complete absence of independent eye-witnesses, no indication of public presence or no material to suggest that the alleged humiliation was visible or audible to the public. Hence, the sine qua non for invoking the provision was missing. The Court also took note of the fact that the crux of the dispute between the parties was purely contractual and commercial in nature. It was also highlighted that no substantial evidence was put forth by the prosecution for the demand draft that was allegedly used to make the payment or the physical assault which undermined the credibility of the complainant's version. In this background, the conviction was set aside. Title: Brij Mohan v State of Rajasthan Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 419Click Here To Read/Download Order

Caste Abuse Inside Closed Shop Not In 'Public View': Rajasthan High Court Sets Aside 31-Year-Old SC/ST Act Conviction

Nupur Agrawal

Tags