[SC/ST Act] Victim Belonging SC/ST Community Not Sufficient To Attract Offence Without Intention To Humiliate Due To Caste Identity: P&H High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has set aside charges framed under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, observing that the offence cannot be attracted merely on the ground that the victim belongs to the SC/ST community without intention to humiliate him due to his caste.

 Justice Harpreet Singh Brar said, "merely the fact that the victim belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe would not be sufficient to attract the offences under the SC/ST Act as the existence of an intention to humiliate the victim due to his caste identity is a sine qua non for the same."

In the present case, the Court noted that the petitioners have been accused of uttering the words 'ded gitlow' and  nothing to suggest that the said phrase was aimed at insulting the complainant on the basis of his caste identity

The Court was hearing a revision plea against the order of the ASJ Court whereby charges were framed against the petitioners under Sections 148 and 323, 325, 506, 427 read with Section 149 IPC and Section 3(x) of the SC/ST Act.

According to the complaint, one Phool Chand was going on his cycle and reached near one Pappu Rana's farm, then the petitioners-accused rounded him up and attacked him with iron rods and swords. On receiving the said information, the family members of the complainant arrived at the spot but they were rounded up by the petitioners as well.

Thereafter, the petitioners caused injuries to the complainant and his family as they belonged to the Harijan community. The Complainant and his family raised alarm, the accused called them as 'ded gitlow' and fled from the spot along with their weapons.

After hearing the submissions, the Court noted that the complainant belongs to the SC community and the ASJ Court had erroneously charged the petitioner with an offence under Section 3(x) of the SC/ST.

"Firstly, there is no provision such as Section 3(x) of the SC/ST Act. Even if it is overlooked as a typographical error, the offence defined under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act does not correspond to the factual matrix of the case," it said.

The Court noted that in spite of the fact that the alleged incident occurred on 13.03.2017, the learned Court below has referred to the SC/ST Act, as it was prior to the Act 1 of 2016, vide which the same was amended w.e.f. 26.01.2016.

Not every intentional insult or intimidation of a member of a SC/ST community will result into a feeling of caste-based humiliation

Justice Brar highlighted that a two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Shajan Skaria vs. State of Kerala has explained the phrase 'intent to humiliate' in context of Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act and held:

"Not every intentional insult or intimidation of a member of a SC/ST community will result into a feeling of caste-based humiliation. It is only in those cases where the intentional insult or intimidation takes place either due to the prevailing practice of untouchability or to reinforce the historically entrenched ideas like the superiority of the "upper castes" over the "lower castes/untouchables", the notions of `purity' and `pollution', etc. that it could be said to be an insult or intimidation of the type envisaged by the Act, 1989."

Perusing the material available on the record, the judge said it does not illustrate how the allegedly offending remarks connect to the caste identity of the complainant, neither has it been established that the same was used by the accused with an intention to humiliate him nor any specific roles have been attributed to the petitioners.

"Since the alleged incident occurred near a farm, but in the company of relatives, the same cannot be said to have occurred in public view," the Court added.

The bench further said that the trial Court at this stage is only to form a presumptive opinion with regard to the existence of the factual ingredients breaching the threshold of the offence alleged. At the stage of formation of opinion under Section 227, 239 and 240 of Cr.P.C, the trial Court is not required to weigh the probative value of the material brought on record in the golden scale or to presume the prosecution story as gospel truth.

"The nature and degree of evaluation at this stage is limited to determine whether a prima facie case exists depending upon the facts of each case and as such, there is no requirement to go deep into the probative value of material on record," it added.

The judge explained that the veracity of the evidence can only be evaluated during the trial. In view of the legal literature and judgmental law on this issue, it could be safely concluded that at the stage of forming an opinion under Section 227, 239 and 240 of Cr.P.C, the trial Court is required to evaluate the material only with a purpose to ascertain whether the facts emerging from the record if taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the offence.

However, it added that the discharge of the accused is only permissible when the case set up by the investigating agency in the final report filed before the trial Court under 173 of Cr.P.C. has no basis or foundation and the trial Court cannot consider the probable defence of the accused in the case at this stage.

In light of the above, the Court allowed the plea to the extent and impugned order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala was set aside to the extent of the charge framed under the SC/ST Act.

Mr. A.P.S. Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG, Haryana.

Title: Navneet Chauhan and others v. State of Haryana and another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 106

Click here to read/download the order