Intention To Humiliate Based On Caste Identity Essential To Attract Offences Under SC/ST Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court
The complainant alleged that the petitioners used derogatory terms, including "ded gitlow," while assaulting him and his family.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court set aside the charges framed under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, observing that the mere fact that a victim belongs to the SC/ST community is insufficient to attract the provisions of the Act.
The Court emphasized that there must be an intention to humiliate the victim specifically due to their caste for the offence to be applicable.
The case in question involved a revision plea against the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), Ambala, who had framed charges against the petitioners under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3(x) of the SC/ST Act.
A Bench of 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."
Advocate A.P.S. Sandhu appeared for the petitioners and AAG Vikas Bhardwaj appeared for the Respondents.
The Court noted that the phrase used by the accused, "ded gitlow," did not indicate an attempt to insult the complainant based on his caste identity. The Court observed that the use of such language alone does not establish that the accused intended to humiliate the victim because of his caste. The Court also highlighted that there was no clear evidence connecting the accused's actions to caste-based humiliation or discrimination.
Furthermore, the Court pointed out that there was a typographical error in the reference to Section 3(x) of the SC/ST Act, as no such provision exists. Even if this was overlooked as an error, the Court observed that the factual matrix of the case did not support the application of Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act, which is designed to address caste-based insults or intimidations.
The Court also referred to a precedent in the Supreme Court's ruling in Shajan Skaria vs. State of Kerala, where it was explained that not every intentional insult or intimidation directed at a member of an SC/ST community amounts to caste-based humiliation.
The Court noted that the alleged incident occurred in a private setting near a farm, not in a public space, and there was no indication that the actions of the petitioners were intended to humiliate the victim due to his caste identity. The Court further emphasized that at the stage of framing charges, the trial court is required to form a preliminary opinion based on the available material, without weighing the probative value of the evidence.
The Court set aside the impugned order to the extent that it had framed charges under the SC/ST Act, though it noted that the trial court could still proceed with the case on other charges under the IPC.
The petition was partially allowed, and the charge under the SC/ST Act was dismissed.
Cause Title: Navneet Chauhan & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr., [2025:PHHC:023139]
