Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Kerala High Court has reiterated that for an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the alleged act of intentional insult or humiliation must occur in a place within public view.

A Single judge bench of Justice G. Girish, observed: “For the applicability of Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST POA Act, as it stood prior to the amendment of the year 2015, it has to be established that the intentional insult or intimidation to cause humiliation to a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe should be at a place within public view. As far as the present case is concerned, since the incident admittedly took place in the dining room of the house of the petitioner, it is not possible to say that it so happened at a place within public view.”

The court was hearing a criminal revision petition against the acquittal of the accused in a case arising out of two related proceedings. The case originated from an incident reported in 2010. The police charged 15 individuals under multiple provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act. The de facto complainant, Kamala, later filed a private complaint alleging the inclusion of two additional accused omitted from the police chargesheet.

Both cases were clubbed and tried together by the Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Act. After evaluating the evidence, the Special Court acquitted all accused except two who were absconding. Dissatisfied, the de facto complainant filed a revision petition challenging the acquittal.

The petitioner alleged procedural errors by the Special Judge, arguing that the joint trial violated norms, and the testimony of the complainant, along with other prosecution witnesses, was unfairly deemed unreliable. Additionally, it was contended that the court erred in concluding that Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act did not apply, asserting that the offence’s location inside her house should not preclude its qualification as an act committed “in public view.”

Upholding the judgment of the Special Court, the High Court clarified that a location within “public view” necessitates a physical space where the public has access or could reasonably witness the occurrence. An incident occurring within a private home, particularly within a dining room, does not meet this criterion, as the space is inherently restricted to household members or invited individuals.

With regards the trial court conducting a joint trial, the HC observed: “the mere fact that the learned Special Judge ventured to pronounce a common judgment in these cases, cannot by itself be taken as a circumstance which would vitiate the proceedings. Needless to say that the challenge raised by the petitioner in the above regard is devoid of merit.” The court held that it was not possible to conclude that the joint trial conducted by the Special Judge had resulted in failure of justice.

The court noted many inconsistencies in the testimony of the complainant as well as the witnesses. Interestingly, It also found that the petitioner’s husband was arrested a week before the complaint was filed, accused in a murder attempt involving the 10th accused in this case. Further, her husband had been involved in abkari (illicit liquor) cases. The petitioner expressed suspicion that the named accused were responsible for implicating her husband in those criminal proceedings. This pointed to a possible ulterior motive behind lodging the complaint.

Given these observations, the court termed the evidence tendered by the complainant “shabby and unreliable”, and found no reason to interfere with the Special Court’s ruling.

Cause Title: Kamala E.P v Ummer and Others [CRL.REV.PET NO. 1575 OF 2017]

Appearance: For the Petitioner - Advocates Roy Chacko and P.S.George; For the State- Public Prosecutor Sangeetharaj N.R and For R1 TO R17-  Advocates Jency Micheal, Sojan Micheal, V.S.Boban, Chacko Simon, Antony Robert DIias and Sivasankar