Blitz Bureau
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a Bihar man accused under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, holding that mere presence at the spot and vague allegations are insufficient to put him on trial.
A Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Alok Aradhe set aside an order of the Patna High Court, which had refused to interfere with the cognisance and summoning order passed by a trial court in Bhagalpur.
Allowing the appeal filed by Keshaw Mahto, the Bench recorded the submission of the state Government’s counsel that “except the fact that the appellant was also present at the relevant point of time with the coaccused, there is no specific overt act attributed to him”.
While quashing the prosecution against him, the apex court said that “putting the appellant into trial, along with other co-accused, will be a travesty of justice”. The case stemmed from an FIR lodged in 2019 alleging that the complainant, belonging to a Scheduled Caste, was abused and assaulted at an anganwadi centre, with casterelated abuses allegedly being hurled. On October 9, 2020, the trial court had taken cognisance of offences under various provisions of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1) (s) of the SC/ST Act.
The appellant had challenged the cognisance and summoning order before the Patna High Court under Section 14A of the SC/ST Act, but his plea was dismissed, prompting him to approach the Supreme Court. In its order, the apex court reiterated that offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act are not attracted merely because the complainant belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe.
“The fact that the complainant belonged to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe would not be enough,” the Bench said, adding that any insult or intimidation must be “on the account of such person being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe”. It further said, “Even mere knowledge of the fact that the complainant is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe is not sufficient to attract Section 3(1)(r).” The Supreme Court held that merely abusing a person or merely uttering a caste name would not constitute an offence under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act.
