Presence Of Public & Not Nature Of Location Determines "Public View" Under SC-ST Act: Kerala High Court
The Court held that for offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the decisive consideration is whether members of the public were present to witness or overhear the alleged caste abuse, and not whether the place of occurrence was public or private in nature.
Justice A. Badharudeen, Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has held that a private place may nevertheless constitute a place "within public view" for Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, if third parties or members of the public were present to witness or overhear the alleged caste-based abuse.
The Court observed that the relevant consideration is the visibility of the occurrence to the public and not the nature of the location where the incident allegedly took place.
The Court was hearing a criminal appeal challenging the rejection of an application for anticipatory bail in a case alleging offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
A Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen, while examining the requirement that the alleged insult or intimidation must occur in a place within public view, observed: "... when the place of occurrence is a private place, the same is of no significance when considering the said place within public view within the mandate of Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act and the relevant consideration is; whether the place irrespective of a private place, at the time of occurrence where third parties/public people present to overhear the abusive remarks to make annoyance to the member of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe. When abuse within the meaning of Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act if committed in the presence of third parties/public people in a private place, the place to be reckoned as a place within public view for the purpose of the said offences."
Advocate K.R. Vinod appeared for the appellant, while Senior Public Prosecutor Vipin Narayan appeared for the State. Advocate K.J. Manu Raj appeared for the de facto complainant.
Background
The prosecution alleged that the de facto complainant, a member of a Scheduled Caste community, was subjected to caste-based abuse and physical assault during a temple festival. It was alleged that the accused called the complainant by his caste name, wrongfully restrained him and caused injuries, including a fracture.
Seeking anticipatory bail, the appellant contended that the offences under the SC/ST Act were not attracted. It was argued that there was no material to show that the appellant had knowledge of the complainant's caste identity and that the requirement of insult or intimidation in a place within public view was not satisfied. The appellant, therefore, contended that the statutory embargo under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act would not apply.
The State and the de facto complainant opposed the plea, contending that the allegations disclosed a prima facie case under the SC/ST Act and that custodial interrogation was necessary for a proper investigation.
Court's Observations
The Court first examined whether the materials collected during the investigation disclosed a prima facie commission of offences under the SC/ST Act, since the applicability of Section 18 depended upon the existence of such a prima facie case. The Court noted that statements of witnesses and the medical records produced by the prosecution supported the allegations regarding the occurrence and the injuries sustained by the victim.
Addressing the contention that the accused lacked knowledge of the complainant's caste identity, the Court referred to Section 8(c) of the SC/ST Act and the decision of the Kerala High Court in Raju Joseph v. State of Kerala (2024). The Court noted that the statute creates a presumption regarding knowledge of caste identity where the accused had personal knowledge of the victim or the victim's family, subject to rebuttal during trial.
Referring to the earlier decision, the Court extracted the following observation: "S.8(c) of the SC/ST Act would show that if the accused was having personal knowledge of the victim or his family, the Court shall presume that the accused was aware of the caste or tribal identity of the victim, unless the contrary is proved."
The Court further noted that the prosecution's case specifically alleged that the complainant had been addressed by his caste name. In such circumstances, the Court held that the question of knowledge of caste identity was a matter governed by the statutory presumption under Section 8(c), which the accused would be entitled to rebut during trial.
The Court observed: "When a person specifically calls another person by his caste name, the caste identity of the victim and the knowledge of such caste identity on the part of the accused are, prima facie, presumed in terms of Section 8(c) of the SC/ST (POA) Act."
The Bench then examined the requirement that the insult or abuse must occur in a place within public view. The Court distinguished between a public place and a place within public view, observing that the latter expression focuses on whether members of the public were present to witness or overhear the occurrence rather than on the legal character of the location itself.
The Court observed: "It is well settled law that a public place will be a place within public view where the presence of the public would be available and inevitable for various reasons. At the same time, a private place is a place normally general public do not have right of access without permission."
Applying this principle to the facts of the case, the Court noted that multiple witnesses had stated that they overheard the alleged caste-based abuse. The alleged occurrence had taken place during a temple festival where members of the public were present, and the complainant was watching the programme being conducted there. The Court therefore found prima facie merit in the prosecution's case that the alleged abuse occurred within public view.
The Court further observed: "Here, as already pointed out, three persons given statements that they overheard the abuse, particularly, the occurrence alleged to be during a temple festival while the de facto complainant was engaged in watching the program."
After considering the materials on record, the Court concluded that the ingredients of Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act were prima facie disclosed. The Bench held that once a prima facie offence under the SC/ST Act is made out, the statutory bar against anticipatory bail becomes operative.
The Court observed: "The above discussion would lead to the conclusion that prima facie the offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act are made out, thereby the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST (POA) Act would squarely attract."
Conclusion
Holding that the prosecution materials prima facie disclosed offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the Kerala High Court upheld the rejection of anticipatory bail.
The Court found that the statutory bar under Section 18 of the Act was attracted and directed the appellant to surrender before the Investigating Officer and cooperate with the investigation.
Cause Title: Sajith v. State of Kerala & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:41181)
Appearances
Appellant: Advocates K.R. Vinod, M.S. Letha, Ismail Shahar and Bhavana Sajan
Respondents: Senior Public Prosecutor Vipin Narayan; Advocates K.J. Manu Raj and Gopika Anil
