Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

Recently, the Allahabad High Court emphasized that for implicating someone under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, it is crucial that offensive words are used with the intent to humiliate the victim due to their SC/ST community membership.

Justice Sadhna Rani (Thakur) clarified that the mere affiliation with SC/ST is insufficient unless there is evidence of the intention to humiliate based on caste.

With these observations, court set aside a cognizance order passed by the Special Judge SC/ST Act, Ghaziabad, in a case involving charges under sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., and Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act.

One Seema Bharadwaj filed an appeal before the high court against the entire proceedings and summoning order passed by the special judge in the case against her. The initial allegations against her involved hurling caste-based words and using abusive language against a domestic worker at her mother's residence, allegedly to force the employee's resignation and facilitate the takeover of her mother's property.

Subsequently, a coordinated assault on the same domestic worker was orchestrated, supposedly under the accused's direction. Following the assault, the victim filed an FIR, detailing an encounter with 5-6 unidentified individuals. She alleged that they hurled wild abuses, caste-based words and threatened her, coercing her to refrain from working at the accused's mother's residence. When she resisted withdrawing a previous case against the accused, the assailants, purportedly acting on the accused's instructions, threatened her life. The victim was then allegedly subjected to a violent assault involving knives and batons.

Opposing the proceedings against her by the special court, the accused argued that even as per the FIR she was not present at the spot of the incident, therefore, she could not be chargesheeted under the above-mentioned Sections. Moreover, she alleged that the allegations against her were orchestrated by her brother.

The high court, considering the facts, agreed with the contention raised on behalf of the accused that in absence of her during the incident, cognizance could not be taken against her for the offences alleged.

Court referred to a 2020 Supreme Court ruling in Hitesh Verma Versus The State of Uttarakhand and Another, emphasizing that SC-ST Act offenses require the intent to humiliate based on caste.

Moreover, while analyzing the FIR, it concluded that the motive behind the incident was not caste-related but rather a desire to prevent the victim from working in accused's mother's house.

Therefore, while criticized the trial court's lack of judicial scrutiny, court opined that cognizance under the mentioned sections against the accused was not justified.

Consequently, it set aside the cognizance order and directed the trial court to reevaluate the matter after going through the above discussion within two months.

Case Title: Seema Bharadwaj vs State of UP and Another