Patna High Court: In a criminal appeal filed by appellants challenging the order dated 27-03-2023 whereby cognizance was taken against the appellants under Sections 147, 341, 447, 323, 379, 354, 504 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), and Sections 3(i) (r) (s) (w)/3(2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘SC/ST Act’), the Single-Judge Bench of Alok Kumar Pandey, J., dismissed the appeal, holding that a prima facie case under the SC/ST Act was made out. The Court observed that the First Information Report (‘FIR’) explicitly recorded that villagers assembled upon hearing the commotion which satisfies the abuse taking place in ‘public view’ under the SC/ST Act.
reasoned that the argument that the caste abuse was not ‘in public view’ had no substance, as the First Information Report (‘FIR’) explicitly recorded that villagers had assembled upon hearing the commotion thereby satisfying the essential ingredient of the offence of.
Background
The informant’s marriage was solemnized in accordance with Hindu rites with a member of the appellants’ family. While she was residing in her matrimonial home, the family of Appellant No. 1, who is a patidar of her family, allegedly subjected her to persistent humiliation by addressing her with caste-indicative abuses and taunts. The appellants are alleged to have repeatedly proclaimed that by reason of the marriage with a member of a Scheduled Caste community, the honour of their family had been diminished, and consequently, the informan’’s family would be ousted.
On the date of the incident the drainage water from the premises of Appellant No. 1 was observed flowing towards the entrance of the informant’s house. When the informant objected and requested suitable arrangements be made, the appellants allegedly assaulted her while uttering caste-related insults. The informant, her daughter, her younger sister-in-law and her mother-in-law were beaten and thrashed.
Upon hearing the commotion, the villagers assembled, but by that time, one of the appellants had already trespassed into the house and dishonestly removed jewellery valued at approximately one lakh rupees. The appellants allegedly threatened the informant and her family with dire consequences while departing, demanding that she vacate her matrimonial home. FIR was registered against the appellants, and the Trial Court passed the cognizance order on 27-03-2023. Aggrieved, the appellants filed the present appeal.
Analysis and Decision
The Court observed that the contention of the appellants’ counsel that the incident was not in public gaze had no substance as the informant clearly stated she was humiliated by caste-indicative abuses and that hearing the commotion the villagers assembled there.
The Court further observed that after marriage the informant was being taunted for belonging to a particular community (Scheduled Caste) and the version of FIR is quite evident that occurrence has taken place and the appellants have assaulted and the informant who herself suffered injury subjected to humiliation for belonging to a particular community.
The Court noted that the Trial Court had considered all the material facts available on record and taken cognizance. The Court noted that in Sonu Gupta v. Deepak Gupta, (2015) 3 SCC 424, the Supreme Court had observed that at the stage of cognizance, the Magistrate is only required to apply judicial mind to find out whether a prima facie case is made out for summoning the accused, and is not required to consider the defence version or evaluate the merits.
The Court observed that it is crystal clear that on hearing the alarm, the people of village came, and they have witnessed the occurrence. It is obvious that the present occurrence had taken place in public gaze, and the legal mandate of SC/ST Act is fully applied in light of present facts and circumstances of the case.
The Court held that a prima facie case is made out against the appellants arising from the accusations in the FIR and dismissed the appeal.
[Mukti Nath Pandey v. State of Bihar, Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.5231 of 2023, decided on: 26-09-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant/s: Chandra Kant, Advocate
For the Respondent/s: Binay Krishna, Spl. P.P.
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
