Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court has recently held that merely referring to a person by their profession does not automatically constitute an offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, unless it is shown that such words were intentionally used to humiliate or insult a person belonging to the SC/ST community.
The observation was made by a Bench of Justice Anil Kumar-X while partly allowing a criminal appeal filed by an accused challenging a summoning order dated August 2024 passed by a Special Judge under the SC/ST Act, Gautam Budh Nagar. The appeal arose from a complaint case in which the appellant had been summoned for offences under Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (intentional insult), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code, along with Sections 3(1)(Da) and 3(1)(Dha) of the SC/ST Act.
According to the complainant, she used to wash clothes for the appellant and had approached him to demand her pending wages. It was alleged that during this interaction, the appellant harassed her on the road, abused her, and used caste-based derogatory words, including referring to her as “Dhobin” along with other alleged casteist expressions.
While examining the material on record, the High Court noted that the dispute appeared to have arisen from a contractual relationship between the parties, as the complainant was engaged in washing clothes for the appellant. The Court observed that the complainant’s allegations vaguely stated that “Jatisuchak Shabd or Dhobin” were used, without clearly establishing that the words were uttered with the deliberate intention of humiliating her on the ground of caste.
The Bench clarified that the essential requirement to attract offences under the SC/ST Act is the presence of mens rea, that is, a clear intention to insult or humiliate a member of the SC/ST community on account of their caste. Merely referring to a person by their profession, even if that profession is traditionally associated with a particular caste, would not by itself fulfil the statutory requirement unless the intent to humiliate is specifically demonstrated.
The Court also addressed the appellant’s argument regarding procedural illegality, wherein it was contended that the trial court erred by converting a protest petition into a complaint without expressly accepting or rejecting the police’s final report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Rejecting this contention, the High Court held that a specific recital of disagreement with the police report is not mandatory. It explained that the act of converting a protest petition into a complaint inherently implies that the final report has not been accepted by the court.
In conclusion, the High Court partly allowed the appeal. It quashed the summoning order and proceedings insofar as they related to Sections 3(1)(Da) and 3(1)(Dha) of the SC/ST Act. However, it directed that the trial would continue for the remaining IPC offences under Sections 323, 504, and 506 in accordance with law.
