Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Rajasthan High Court: In an appeal filed by the appellant seeking reversal of Trial Court’s finding whereby he was convicted and sentenced under Section 3 (1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘SC/ST Act’) and Section 323 of the Penal Code 1860 (‘IPC’), a Single Judge Bench of Farjand Ali, J., reiterated that the textual and purposive interpretation of Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act mandated that the alleged act should occur at a place “within public view”.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the said order.
Background
In August 1991, a report was lodged by the complainant, alleging that he was intentionally insulted, intimidated, and physically assaulted by the accused who referred to his caste. It stated that he had purchased a motorcycle from the appellant’s showroom on loan which was financed by Bajaj Auto Finance Company Ltd. and had admittedly defaulted in repayment of the monthly instalments, with several cheques issued by him being dishonored. Consequent to such default, the appellant demanded clearance of outstanding dues.
During this period, the motorcycle met with an accident and was brought to the appellant’s showroom for repairs. The repair work was duly carried out, and the cost thereof was assessed at approximately Rs. 10,000. When the complainant went to collect the vehicle, he allegedly offered payment through a demand draft which was refused by the appellant, who instead insisted upon payment in cash or by cheque. It was further alleged that during this interaction, the appellant insulted the complainant by referring to his caste and physically pushed him out of the showroom.
Following investigation, a charge-sheet was filed for offences under Section 323 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act. Upon culmination of trial, the Special Judge convicted the accused, aggrieved by which he approached the High Court.
Analysis and Decision
The Court noted that the dispute between the parties was purely contractual and commercial in nature, namely that of seller and customer. Further, the Court stated that the prosecution’s case that the complainant attempted to tender payment by way of a demand draft was conspicuously unsupported by any reliable evidence as not a single document, whether the alleged demand draft, a bank receipt, or any contemporaneous record demonstrating its preparation, was produced during the trial.
The Court further stated that had such a demand draft genuinely been prepared, its existence would have been easily demonstrable by producing the draft itself or at least some banking record. The absence of any such proof created a serious lacuna in the prosecution case and substantially undermined the credibility of the complainant’s version, reinforcing the defense plea that the dispute arose purely on account of non-payment.
The Court stated that equally infirm was prosecution’s allegation of physical assault as no medical evidence whatsoever was adduced to corroborate the claim that the complainant was slapped or sustained any injury. After examining the site map, the Court stated that it clearly depicted that the alleged incident occurred entirely within the enclosed and private precincts of the appellant’s showroom.
Thus, the Court held that the alleged act could not be said to have been committed at a place within public view which is why the essential ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act were not satisfied, rendering the said provision inapplicable. The Court stated that “The essence and legislative utility of this provision lie in curbing caste-based humiliation and indignity inflicted upon members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the public domain, where such acts not only demean the individual but also reinforce social oppression by public display.”
The Court reiterated that the textual and purposive interpretation of Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act mandated that the alleged act should occur at a place “within public view”, a locus so situated or exposed that the conduct in question would be capable of being observed, perceived or witnessed by members of the general public. In the present case, the incident was averred to have transpired within close precincts, specifically within the four corners of the walls of the shop premises. This description denoted a spatially confined and enclosed environment, shielded from casual public access and observation. Such an enclave, locked within the four walls of a private commercial establishment, fell squarely outside the ambit of a public vista. It lacked outward exposure which the legislative provision contemplated as an essential element for Section 3(1)(x) to apply.
The Court further observed that even if the complainant’s version were to be accepted at face value, the confinement of the alleged act to a private and enclosed space rendered Section 3(1)(x) of the Act stood inapplicable. The absence of independent public witnesses and the lack of any material indicating public visibility of the alleged incident constituted a fatal defect in the prosecution case.
Thus, the Court stated that the cumulative effect of the absence of proof regarding payment by demand draft, the lack of medical corroboration for the alleged assault, and the failure to establish the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act clearly demonstrated that the prosecution had not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the conviction recorded by the Trial Court could not be sustained.
Hence, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Special Judge’s order.
[Brij Mohan v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 494 of 1994, decided on 5-12-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Rajiv Bishnoi
For the Respondent: Rajesh Bhati, Ravindra Bhati AGA and Anjali Kaushik