The Kerala High Court granted the anticipatory bail to an accused booked under the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 after noting that the word in question meant son of a prostitute which is not a casteist slur and the insult was not made in public view.

The High Court was considering an appeal filed under Section 14A of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 by the petitioner/third accused against the dismissal of his petition under Section 482 of BNSS seeking pre-arrest bail.

The Single-Judge Bench of Justice C.S. Sudha clarified, “Going by the dictionary meaning, the word “xxxxxxx" means son of a prostitute. That being so, the learned counsel for the appellant/A3 is right in saying that the same is not a casteist slur. There is no case that any other abusive word(s) had been used by the accused.”

Advocate Mini V.A. represented the Appellants while Public Prosecutor Sheeba Thomas represented the Respondents.

Factual Background

The incident dates back to November 12, 2024, when the accused persons, three in number, abused him and his brother-in-law Abiraj and voluntarily caused hurt to them. A1 to A3, his neighbours and his brother-in-law are acquaintances. A1 is the son of A2. The accused persons are aware that he belongs to the Pulaya Community. On the date of the incident, there was an altercation between Abiraj and A1 and A3, which ended in a scuffle. Hearing this, the informant proceeded to the place where the incident occurred, by which time, Abiraj had returned home. Thereafter in the night, the second accused and Abiraj again had a discussion and A2 fisted him on the left side of his face resulting in a bleeding injury.

Hearing their cries when people rushed to the scene, A1 to A3 took to their heels. A1 voluntarily caused injuries to Abiraj as the latter had questioned the former's act of damaging his vehicle. The informant further states that A1 and A2 insulted and attacked them as they were confident that nobody would question them for attacking the former and his relative as they belonged to the scheduled caste community. It was alleged in the FIR that A1 to A3 committed the offences punishable under Section 329 (3), 115(2), 118(1) read with 3(5) of the BNS and 3(2) (va) of the Act.

Reasoning

The investigation had revealed the commission of the offence under Section 3(1)(r) also. On this aspect, the Bench explained that the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act would indicate the ingredients of intentional insult and intimidation with an intent to humiliate a member of a scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe. All insults or intimidation to a person will not be an offence under the Act unless such insult or intimidation is on account of the victim belonging to the scheduled caste or scheduled tribe.

The Bench referred to the abuse hurled by the accused and said, “Going by the dictionary meaning, the word “ xxxxxxxx” means son of a prostitute. That being so, the learned counsel for the appellant/A3 is right in saying that the same is not a casteist slur. There is no case that any other abusive word(s) had been used by the accused.”

“Further, to attract the offence under Section 3(1) (r), the abuse should have taken place in public view. Going by the allegations in FIS, it appears that the nearby residents gathered on hearing the cries of the informant and Abiraj. When A1 is alleged to have abused the informant and Abiraj, nobody else seems to have been present there. Therefore, if at all the aforesaid word is taken as a casteist slur, it does not seem to have been done in public view”, it added.

In the said case there was no dispute regarding the fact that the aggrieved therein belonged to the scheduled caste. Still, there was no evidence to show that the offence was committed only on the ground that the victim was a member of the scheduled caste. Therefore the conviction of the appellant/accused under Section 3(2) of the Act was held to be not sustainable. The attack appeared to have been made in the background of the dispute herein above referred to and not only on the ground that the informant and Abiraj are members of scheduled caste.

Further, the overt act alleged against the appellant/A3 was only voluntarily causing simple hurt to the informant. It was A1 who attacked and caused hurt and grievous hurt to Abiraj. It was brought to the Court’s notice that A1 and A2 were arrested and remanded. Thereafter they were released on bail. As per the Bench, the question of whether the offences under Section 3(2) (va) of the Act have been committed only on the ground that the informant and his relative are members of a scheduled caste and scheduled tribe is a matter that would have to be brought out in evidence.

Concluding that the custodial interrogation of the appellant/A3 did not appear necessary, the Bench granted him pre-arrest bail.

Cause Title: Sarath K.S. v. State of Kerala & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:2038)

Appearance:

Appellant: Advocates Mini. V.A., Ross Ann Babu

Respondent: Public Prosecutor Sheeba Thomas

Click here to read/download Order


Kerala HCJustice CS SudhaScheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) ActInsult

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.