Bombay High Court Ruling on SC/ST Act Case
The Bombay High Court recently quashed a case under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act), emphasizing the requirement that certain offences must occur in "public view" to qualify for prosecution.
Case Details: Afshamaskar Laikhkan Pathan vs State of Maharashtra
- The complainant alleged assault and casteist abuse by a man's relatives after a failed marriage promise.
- An FIR was filed under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, which address:
- 3(1)(r): Intentional insult or intimidation to humiliate a Scheduled Caste or Tribe member in public view.
- 3(1)(s): Abuse by caste name in public view.
Bombay HC Decision
- A Bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Rohit Joshi quashed proceedings against four accused.
- Emphasized that offences must occur "in public view", requiring the presence of uninvolved witnesses.
- The chargesheet and FIR lacked witness statements, leading to the quashing of the charges under Sections 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(r).
Legal Precedent and Interpretation
- The Bombay HC referred to the Supreme Court's 2020 ruling in Hitesh Verma vs State of Uttarakhand, which necessitates public view presence for these offences.
- Reiterated by the Karnataka High Court in a similar case, stating "public view" is essential and an informant's caste alone does not establish an offence.
Supreme Court's Stance
- In December 2024, the Supreme Court set aside charges in a case where the incident occurred in a private setting, not in public view.
This interpretation ensures that alleged offences under the SC/ST Act must meet specific criteria to qualify as prosecutable, particularly the requirement of public view, critical for upholding justice and preventing misuse of the Act.
