High Court · 2025

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred being aggrieved with the order of the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 8, Allahabad for taking cognizance over the charge-sheet pertaining to Case Crime No. 32 of 2024, under Sections 354- क, 506 IPC and Section 3 (1) (X) of The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act'), Police Station Handia, District Allahabad (Prayagraj) vide order dated 19.12.2020.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA and perused the entire record.

3. As per brief contents of the F.I.R of the case in hand on 27.01.2014 at about 11:00 AM when the informant/victim was doing some work in her field the present accused/appellant Raju Yadav came there and tried to outrage the modesty of the lady informant, who is a member of SC/ST community and the accused-appellant hurled abuses with caste related remarks and threatened also. During the incident she was slammed on the ground by the accused-appellant. FIR was lodged and after investigation charge-sheet was filed and impugned cognizance order was passed by the court.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He has not committed the present offence. Alleged offences are not attracted against him. Essential ingredients to establish an offence under SC/ST Act are also missing in this case but the legal aspect of the matter was over looked by the Investigating Officer of this case. It is also submitted that the charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 354-(A), 506 IPC and Section 3 (1) (X) of 'The Act'. It is further submitted that the offence under the aforesaid provision of SC/ST Act is only made out, if it is committed in any place within public view and if the said offence is not committed in the public view no offence under the aforesaid provision of SC/ST Act is made out.

5. The provisions of Section 3 (1) (X) of SC/ST Act are extracted as below:- "3. Punishments for offences of atrocities.—1[(1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,—

1. Subs. by Act 1 of 2016, sec.4(i), for sub-section (1) (w.e.f. 26-1- 2016, vide S.O. 152(E), dated 18th January, 2016). Sub-section (1), before substitution, stood as under: x. intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view;"

6. The provisions of Section 354-A IPC are as herein-under: "[1] A man committing any of the following acts— (i) physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures; or (ii) a demand or request for sexual favours; or (iii) showing pornography against the will of a woman; or (iv) making sexually coloured remarks, shall be guilty of the offence of sexual harassment1. [2] Any man who commits the offence specified in clause (i) or clause (ii) or clause (iii) of sub-section (1) shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. [3] Any man who commits the offence specified in clause (iv) of sub-section (1) shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both."

7. It is further submitted that the aforesaid preposition denotes that the offence must have been committed in any place within public view. It is further submitted that when the alleged victim of this case was interrogated by the investigating officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C she fairly stated that when the accused came to her and slammed her no one was present there except the accused himself who only slammed her and no sexual assault was made by him. It is also stated by the victim that when she tried to rescue and ran away towards the village making shrieks she was further threatened by the accused. She disclosed the incident to her uncle, aunty and other villagers and on the next date report was lodged by her. It is also submitted that as per evidence of victim herself although the incident took place in a field but it was not committed in public view and no one except the victim was present over there. It is further submitted that if the element of public view is not satisfied no prosecution can be initiated under the provisions of Section 3 (1) (X) of 'The Act'.

8. Per contra, learned A.G.A vehemently opposed the present appeal. It has been submitted that the offence to outrage the modesty of lady victim has been committed in a open field which was accessible to all. The victim belonged to the SC/ST community and the accused-appellant who is not a member of SC/ST community and is a resident of the same village very well knew that the victim belonged to the SC/ST community and only due to her caste offence was committed against her. The impugned order does not suffer with any illegality or infirmity and the revision is liable to be dismissed.

9. To attract the provisions under Section 3 (1) (X) of 'The Act' some basic ingredients are always to be kept into mind; firstly, the insult of the victim herself ought to have been done in any place within the public view and further, it must also be established that the accused had knowledge that the victim belonged to the SC/ST community and the offence was committed for that very reason. Furthermore, there must be an intentional insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate or insult a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and the offender must be a member of non SC/ST community.

10. In order to find whether the offence of this case was committed in a place within public view it is to be kept in mind that the public view denotes situation wherever public was watching the incident and the incident was viewed by the members of public whether it was a private place or public place. In the instant case since the incident was witnessed by none of the members of public and victim was all alone at the place of occurrence, it cannot be said that the incident occurred in any place within public view. The victim in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. nowhere states that except herself any other person was present there when the offence was committed by the accused. The statement given to the Investigating Officer by the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is having much significance where she herself admits that no one saw the incident and the family members and the villagers came to know about the incident only after receiving information from the victim herself.

11. In her statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. the victim has narrated the story and she has stated that the accused called her 'Bhauji' and used some caste related remarks. However, in the F.I.R. itself it is missing as to what caste related remarks were made by the accused and even in the statement of the victim under section 161 Cr.P.C. no specific caste related words used by the appellant have been disclosed. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Chandra Vaishya Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Another 2023 0 Supreme (SC) 550 clarified that the legislative intent seems to be clear that every insult or intimidation to humiliate a person would not amount for an offence under Section 3 (1) (X) of SC/ST Act, unless, of course, such insult or intimidation is targeted at the victim on ground that by caste she belonged to SC/ST community. It is further held that if one calls another an idiot (bewaqoof) or a fool (murkh) or a thief (chor) in any place within public view, this would obviously constitute an act intended to insult or humiliate by user of abusive or offensive language. Even if the same be directed generally to a person, who happens to be a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe person, it may not be sufficient to attract Section 3 (1) (X) of SC/ST Act unless such words are laced with casteist remarks.

12. If the aforesaid dictum of law is translated into the conditions of the matter in hand it is found that the victim was called with the word 'Bhauji' by the accused and what caste related words used by the accused and what abuses in context with her caste were hurled by the accused-appellant are missing in this case. Only to call the victim as Bhauji by the appellant does not take the case within the purview of Section 3 (1) (X) of 'The Act'.

13. The law applicable in the matter relating to an offence pertaining to SC/ST Act cautions that to attract the provisions of section 3 of the Act it is necessary that the incident should have been occurred at a place where public could view the incident and the trial court in such matter should exercise sufficient care and caution before proceeding against the accused.

14. Learned counsel for the appellant referred some other statements of other witnesses who were interrogated by the Investigating Officer like Bhagirathi and Smt. Jagwanti etc. who have not given the eye witness account of the incident. Another plea taken by the learned counsel for the appellant is that according to the prosecution story the lady victim was slammed in field by the accused and she tried to protest and save herself but surprisingly the victim was never medically examined whereas in the process of protest and saving herself some injuries were quite probable to be sustained by her. It is also submitted that no statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. of the victim was recorded during investigation for the reasons best known to him.

15. In the case of Shankar lal Vs. State of M.P. 2004 (3) Crimes 686 [M.P.] the Hon'ble M.P. High Court in an identical matter held like this "Where there was no evidence to show that the appellant used criminal force to the prosecutrix to outrage her modesty only because she belonged to a particular caste or community, whereby there was no such circumstance to suggest that her modesty was intended or tried to be outraged, simply because she belonged to a particular community, thus, the ingredients of Section 3 (1) (XI) of the Act were not proved and conviction of the appellant deserved to the set aside. Thus offence under Section 3 (1) (XI) of the Act would not stand established. [Shankar Lal v. State of M.P., 2004 (3) Crimes 686 (MP)]."

16. The learned State counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to this fact that even if any offence under the SC/ST Act is not made out but the victim of this case has fully corroborated the prosecution version that sexual harassment was committed with her by the appellant. So far as offence of section 506 IPC is concerned in the F.I.R itself it is mentioned that the appellant on the place of occurrence had threatened the victim for life. Witnesses Bhagirathi and Jagwanti also stated before the Investigating Officer that victim was threatened for life by the present appellant. The victim herself states under section 161 Cr.P.C. she was threatened for dire consequences by the appellant at the time of commission of crime. Hence, this Court has no hesitation to hold that although offence under Section 3 (1) (X) of 'The Act' does not made out against the appellant and the cognizance and summoning order to that extent needs to be set aside but essential ingredients to prima facie establish offence क and 506 IPC are clearly made out from the under Sections 354- offence on record.

17. Accordingly, the appeal is liable to be allowed partly with the observation that no offence under Section Section 3 (1) (X) of 'The Act' is not made out against the appellant. However, offences क and 506 IPC are made out against him and under Sections 354- so far as the summoning and cognizance order is concerned it should be modified accordingly.

18. The present appeal is disposed of accordingly.

19. The learned trial court is directed to make necessary compliance after deletion of offence under Section 3 (1) (X) of 'The Act' from this matter. Order Date :- 10.3.2025 Vikram VIKRAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred being aggrieved with the order of the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 8, Allahabad for taking cognizance over the charge-sheet pertaining to Case Crime No. 32 of 2024, under Sections 354- क, 506 IPC and Section 3 (1) (X) of The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act'), Police Station Handia, District Allahabad (Prayagraj) vide order dated 19.12.2020.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA and perused the entire record.

3. As per brief contents of the F.I.R of the case in hand on 27.01.2014 at about 11:00 AM when the informant/victim was doing some work in her field the present accused/appellant Raju Yadav came there and tried to outrage the modesty of the lady informant, who is a member of SC/ST community and the accused-appellant hurled abuses with caste related remarks and threatened also. During the incident she was slammed on the ground by the accused-appellant. FIR was lodged and after investigation charge-sheet was filed and impugned cognizance order was passed by the court.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He has not committed the present offence. Alleged offences are not attracted against him. Essential ingredients to establish an offence under SC/ST Act are also missing in this case but the legal aspect of the matter was over looked by the Investigating Officer of this case. It is also submitted that the charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 354-(A), 506 IPC and Section 3 (1) (X) of 'The Act'. It is further submitted that the offence under the aforesaid provision of SC/ST Act is only made out, if it is committed in any place within public view and if the said offence is not committed in the public view no offence under the aforesaid provision of SC/ST Act is made out.

5. The provisions of Section 3 (1) (X) of SC/ST Act are extracted as below:- "3. Punishments for offences of atrocities.—1[(1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,—

1. Subs. by Act 1 of 2016, sec.4(i), for sub-section (1) (w.e.f. 26-1- 2016, vide S.O. 152(E), dated 18th January, 2016). Sub-section (1), before substitution, stood as under: x. intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view;"

6. The provisions of Section 354-A IPC are as herein-under: "[1] A man committing any of the following acts— (i) physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures; or (ii) a demand or request for sexual favours; or (iii) showing pornography against the will of a woman; or (iv) making sexually coloured remarks, shall be guilty of the offence of sexual harassment1. [2] Any man who commits the offence specified in clause (i) or clause (ii) or clause (iii) of sub-section (1) shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. [3] Any man who commits the offence specified in clause (iv) of sub-section (1) shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both."

7. It is further submitted that the aforesaid preposition denotes that the offence must have been committed in any place within public view. It is further submitted that when the alleged victim of this case was interrogated by the investigating officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C she fairly stated that when the accused came to her and slammed her no one was present there except the accused himself who only slammed her and no sexual assault was made by him. It is also stated by the victim that when she tried to rescue and ran away towards the village making shrieks she was further threatened by the accused. She disclosed the incident to her uncle, aunty and other villagers and on the next date report was lodged by her. It is also submitted that as per evidence of victim herself although the incident took place in a field but it was not committed in public view and no one except the victim was present over there. It is further submitted that if the element of public view is not satisfied no prosecution can be initiated under the provisions of Section 3 (1) (X) of 'The Act'.

8. Per contra, learned A.G.A vehemently opposed the present appeal. It has been submitted that the offence to outrage the modesty of lady victim has been committed in a open field which was accessible to all. The victim belonged to the SC/ST community and the accused-appellant who is not a member of SC/ST community and is a resident of the same village very well knew that the victim belonged to the SC/ST community and only due to her caste offence was committed against her. The impugned order does not suffer with any illegality or infirmity and the revision is liable to be dismissed.

9. To attract the provisions under Section 3 (1) (X) of 'The Act' some basic ingredients are always to be kept into mind; firstly, the insult of the victim herself ought to have been done in any place within the public view and further, it must also be established that the accused had knowledge that the victim belonged to the SC/ST community and the offence was committed for that very reason. Furthermore, there must be an intentional insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate or insult a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and the offender must be a member of non SC/ST community.

10. In order to find whether the offence of this case was committed in a place within public view it is to be kept in mind that the public view denotes situation wherever public was watching the incident and the incident was viewed by the members of public whether it was a private place or public place. In the instant case since the incident was witnessed by none of the members of public and victim was all alone at the place of occurrence, it cannot be said that the incident occurred in any place within public view. The victim in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. nowhere states that except herself any other person was present there when the offence was committed by the accused. The statement given to the Investigating Officer by the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is having much significance where she herself admits that no one saw the incident and the family members and the villagers came to know about the incident only after receiving information from the victim herself.

11. In her statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. the victim has narrated the story and she has stated that the accused called her 'Bhauji' and used some caste related remarks. However, in the F.I.R. itself it is missing as to what caste related remarks were made by the accused and even in the statement of the victim under section 161 Cr.P.C. no specific caste related words used by the appellant have been disclosed. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Chandra Vaishya Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Another 2023 0 Supreme (SC) 550 clarified that the legislative intent seems to be clear that every insult or intimidation to humiliate a person would not amount for an offence under Section 3 (1) (X) of SC/ST Act, unless, of course, such insult or intimidation is targeted at the victim on ground that by caste she belonged to SC/ST community. It is further held that if one calls another an idiot (bewaqoof) or a fool (murkh) or a thief (chor) in any place within public view, this would obviously constitute an act intended to insult or humiliate by user of abusive or offensive language. Even if the same be directed generally to a person, who happens to be a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe person, it may not be sufficient to attract Section 3 (1) (X) of SC/ST Act unless such words are laced with casteist remarks.

12. If the aforesaid dictum of law is translated into the conditions of the matter in hand it is found that the victim was called with the word 'Bhauji' by the accused and what caste related words used by the accused and what abuses in context with her caste were hurled by the accused-appellant are missing in this case. Only to call the victim as Bhauji by the appellant does not take the case within the purview of Section 3 (1) (X) of 'The Act'.

13. The law applicable in the matter relating to an offence pertaining to SC/ST Act cautions that to attract the provisions of section 3 of the Act it is necessary that the incident should have been occurred at a place where public could view the incident and the trial court in such matter should exercise sufficient care and caution before proceeding against the accused.

14. Learned counsel for the appellant referred some other statements of other witnesses who were interrogated by the Investigating Officer like Bhagirathi and Smt. Jagwanti etc. who have not given the eye witness account of the incident. Another plea taken by the learned counsel for the appellant is that according to the prosecution story the lady victim was slammed in field by the accused and she tried to protest and save herself but surprisingly the victim was never medically examined whereas in the process of protest and saving herself some injuries were quite probable to be sustained by her. It is also submitted that no statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. of the victim was recorded during investigation for the reasons best known to him.

15. In the case of Shankar lal Vs. State of M.P. 2004 (3) Crimes 686 [M.P.] the Hon'ble M.P. High Court in an identical matter held like this "Where there was no evidence to show that the appellant used criminal force to the prosecutrix to outrage her modesty only because she belonged to a particular caste or community, whereby there was no such circumstance to suggest that her modesty was intended or tried to be outraged, simply because she belonged to a particular community, thus, the ingredients of Section 3 (1) (XI) of the Act were not proved and conviction of the appellant deserved to the set aside. Thus offence under Section 3 (1) (XI) of the Act would not stand established. [Shankar Lal v. State of M.P., 2004 (3) Crimes 686 (MP)]."

16. The learned State counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to this fact that even if any offence under the SC/ST Act is not made out but the victim of this case has fully corroborated the prosecution version that sexual harassment was committed with her by the appellant. So far as offence of section 506 IPC is concerned in the F.I.R itself it is mentioned that the appellant on the place of occurrence had threatened the victim for life. Witnesses Bhagirathi and Jagwanti also stated before the Investigating Officer that victim was threatened for life by the present appellant. The victim herself states under section 161 Cr.P.C. she was threatened for dire consequences by the appellant at the time of commission of crime. Hence, this Court has no hesitation to hold that although offence under Section 3 (1) (X) of 'The Act' does not made out against the appellant and the cognizance and summoning order to that extent needs to be set aside but essential ingredients to prima facie establish offence क and 506 IPC are clearly made out from the under Sections 354- offence on record.

17. Accordingly, the appeal is liable to be allowed partly with the observation that no offence under Section Section 3 (1) (X) of 'The Act' is not made out against the appellant. However, offences क and 506 IPC are made out against him and under Sections 354- so far as the summoning and cognizance order is concerned it should be modified accordingly.

18. The present appeal is disposed of accordingly.

19. The learned trial court is directed to make necessary compliance after deletion of offence under Section 3 (1) (X) of 'The Act' from this matter. Order Date :- 10.3.2025 Vikram VIKRAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad