Caste Abuse Inside Closed Shop Not In Public View: Rajasthan High Court Sets Aside 31-Year-Old Conviction In SC/ ST Case

The Rajasthan High Court has set aside the conviction of a seller in a 31 years old case under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The Court was considering an Appeal against judgment of conviction and the sentence imposed by the Special Judge in a case registered under Section 3 (1)(X) of the SC/ST Act and Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The Bench of Justice Farjand Ali held, "In the present case, this foundational requirement remains wholly unestablished. The evidence on record unambiguously demonstrates that the alleged incident, even if assumed to have occurred, took place inside a closed showroom, beyond the view of the general public. There is a complete absence of independent eyewitnesses, no indication of public presence, and no material to suggest that the alleged humiliation was visible or audible to members of the public. Thus, the sine qua non for invoking Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act is glaringly absent."

The Appellant was represented by Advocate Rajiv Bishnoi, while the Respondent was represented by Additional Government Advocate Rajesh Bhati.

Facts of the Case

A Report was lodged by the Complainant alleging that he was intentionally insulted, intimidated, and physically assaulted by the accused by referring to his caste. It was alleged that such conduct amounted to an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in addition to an offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The complainant had purchased a Bajaj Kawasaki motorcycle from the Appellant’s showroom on loan, which was financed by Bajaj Auto Finance Company Ltd., and had admittedly defaulted in repayment of the monthly instalments, with several cheques issued by him being dishonoured. When the motorcycle met with an accident and was brought to the Appellant’s showroom for repairs, the Complainant was asked to make payment and take delivery of the repaired vehicle.

According to the prosecution, when the Complainant went to collect the vehicle, he allegedly offered payment through a demand draft which was refused by the Appellant, who instead insisted upon payment in cash or by cheque. It was further alleged that during this interaction, the Appellant insulted the Complainant by referring to his caste and physically pushed him out of the showroom. 

A case was thus filed, leading to the conviction of the Appellant.

Reasoning By Court 

The Court at the outset stated that the absence of any demand draft, a bank receipt, or any contemporaneous record creates a serious lacuna in the prosecution's case and substantially and  undermines the credibility of the Complainant’s version, reinforcing the defence plea that the dispute arose purely on account of non-payment.

Establishing that the alleged incident occurred entirely within the enclosed and private precincts of the Appellant’s showroom, the Court ruled, "In the facts at hand, the incident is averred to have transpired within close precincts, specifically within the four corners of the walls of the shop premises. This description denotes a spatially confined and enclosed environment, shielded from casual public access and observation. Such an enclave, locked within the four walls of a private commercial establishment, falls squarely outside the ambit of a public vista; it lacks the outward exposure which the legislative provision contemplates as an essential element for Section 3(1)(x) to apply."

The Appeal was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: Brij Mohan @ Raja v. State Of Rajasthan (2025:RJ-JD:52947)

Appearances:

Appellant- Advocate Rajiv Bishnoi

Respondent- Additional Government Advocate Rajesh Bhati, Additional Government Advocate Ravindra Bhati, Advocate Anjali Kaushik

Click here to read/ download Order