International Journal of Law 

International Journal of Law

ISSN: 2455-2194
Impact Factor: RJIF 5.12
www.lawjournals.org
Volume 4; Issue 1; January 2018; Page No. 10-14

Atrocities within ‘public view’ under SC/ST (prevention of atrocities) act: A critical analysis
Dr. Ashok Kumar Makkar
Department of Law, Chaudhary Devi Lal University, Sirsa, Haryana, India

Abstract
The legislature has used the word ‘within public view’ under section 3 (1) (x) of The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and section 3 (1) (r) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 instead of ‘public place’. The intention of the legislature was to cover private places also if the
offence under this act is committed against the persons of Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes. The offence of intentionally
insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view
means the public is able to witness the offence committed under this act. The dictionary meaning of the word ''public'' is ''open to
the people as a whole''. The dictionary meaning of the word ''view'' is vision or sight as from a particular position. Reading these
two meanings together in the context of the words ''public view'', it only means that the public should have viewed the incident
irrespective of the place where the offence is committed, it may be private place or public place.

Keywords: public view, atrocities, scheduled castes, scheduled tribes

Introduction SC/ST community. Therefore, while interpreting the

The main ingredient of Section 3(1) (x) of the act is insults or expression "in any place within public view", one will have to
intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled hold that occurrence of the incident was viewed by the public.
Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place ‘within public view’. The expression "within public view" will have to be read to
The offence must be committed against the member of the mean that the offence under section 3(1) (x) of the Act, should
scheduled caste or scheduled tribe by the person who is not a take place in view of the "public". If no member of the public
member of Scheduled caste or scheduled tribes ‘within public has either seen the incident or heard the remarks, then even if
view’. If any offence is committed by the member of the place is a "public place" or a place "visible to the public",
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes against the member of it would not attract the ingredients of the offence under
Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, then the provisions of section 3 (1)(x) of the Act [2].
this act will not attract. In case, petitioner/accused belongs to The offence is made out if a person not being a member of
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe they are not punishable Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe intentionally insults or
under section 3 of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of Scheduled
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, as the provisions does not Caste and Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view. It
attract itself [1]. The provision of Section 3(l) (x) of the Act cannot make out the offence punishable under Section 3 (1)
does not use the expression "public place", but instead the (x) of the Act, as simply addressing a person by his caste
expression used is "in any place within public view". There is without any intention to insult or intimidate in public view [3].
a clear distinction between the two expressions. If a private In order to launch prosecution under Section 3(1) (x) of Act,
place, such as the courtyard of a residential house, can be seen two necessary and indispensable ingredients must exist -
by someone from road or lane outside the boundary wall, and Victim should belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe
if the incident occurred at such a place is audible and visible and there must be humiliation of such person in public view
[4]
to the people, it would, indubitably constitute an offence under .
section 3(1) (x) of the Act, it being a place within public view. The word ''public view'' is not defined in the Act. The
In other words, a place of offence can be a private place, but if dictionary meaning of the word ''public'' is ''open to the people
the remarks made, with intent to humiliate a member of a as a whole''. The dictionary meaning of the word ''view'' is
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, are audible and/or if vision or sight as from a particular position. Reading these two
members of public have viewed the incident, even if the meanings together in the context of the words ''public view'', it
incident occurred at a private place, such as the courtyard of a only means that the public should have viewed the incident
house, in my opinion, it would constitute an offence under
section 3(1) (x) of the Act. It is evident from the Statement of                                                             
2
Mahesh Sakharam Patole v. The State of Maharashtra 2010 (1) RCR
Objects and Reasons of the Act that it was enacted to prevent (Criminal) 39
indignities, humiliation and harassment to the members of 3
Chakradhar Gopinath Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra 2010 Cr.Lj (NOC) 428
(Bom)
                                                             4
K. Venugopal Reddy and Others v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police
1
Taranath v. State of A.P. 1999(1) Crimes 188(A.P.) and Others 2016 (1) ALT (Cri) 177 (A.P.)

10
International Journal of Law 

irrespective of the place where the offence is committed. The member of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes 'within
offence may be in a public place within ''public view'' or in public view' which means at the time of the alleged insult the
any other place within ''public view''. In either situation, the person insulted must be present as the expression 'within
essential element that requires to be established is that it was public view' indicates or otherwise the legislature would have
in ''public view''. The word ''public view'' in the Section is avoided the use of the said expression which it avoided in
preceded by the word ''in any place within''. Therefore, it is clause (ii) or would have used the expression 'in any public
clear to my mind that insult or intimidation should be in a place'.
place within public view [5]. The main ingredient for attraction of the provisions of the act
is that the offence should be committed by the person who
Independent Witnesses should not be a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled
The expression within 'public view' occurring in Section 3(1) Tribes.
(x) of the Act means within the view which includes hearing,
knowledge or accessibility also, of a group of people of the Accused should be other than scheduled caste or scheduled
place/locality/village as distinct from few who are not private tribe
and are as good as strangers and not linked with the According to the basic ingredients of Section 3(1) (x) of the
complainant through any close relationship or any business, SC/ST Act, the complainant ought to have alleged that the
commercial or any other vested interest and who are not appellant accused was not a member of the Scheduled Caste
participating members with him in any way. If such group of or a Scheduled Tribe and he was intentionally insulted or
people comprises anyone of these, it would not satisfy the intimidated by the accused with intent to humiliate in a place
requirement of 'public view' within the meaning of the within public view. If, nowhere it is mentioned that the
expression used [6]." appellant-accused was not a member of the Scheduled Caste
or a Scheduled Tribe and he intentionally insulted or
Victim must be present at the place when the words are intimidated with intent to humiliate in a place within public
uttered view. When the basic ingredients of the offence are missing in
To constitute an offence under the section the person insulted the complaint, then permitting such a complaint to continue
should be present at the time when the words were uttered and to compel the appellant to face the rigmarole of the
within public view [7]. Insult contemplated under Sub-section criminal trial would be totally unjustified leading to abuse of
(ii) [8] is different from the insult contemplated under Sub- process of law [9].
section (x) of Section 3 SC/ST Act. In the first case Scheduled In case of "Asmathunnisa [10]" it was held that the offence
Caste or Scheduled Tribe gets insulted by the physical act and must be committed within public view to attract the provisions
whereas in the latter he gets insulted in public view by the of Section 3(1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
words uttered by the wrong doer for which he must be present Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.It is clear from the
at the place. A reading of Section 3(1) shows that two kinds of above case laws that the offence falling under Sec.3 (1) (x) of
insults against the member of a Scheduled Castes or the Act should have been committed in any place within
Scheduled Tribes are made punishable-one as defined under ''public view'' and if this element is not present, than the
clause (ii) and the other as defined under clause (x) of the said conviction cannot be sustained [11].
section. A combined reading of the two clauses shows that The ingredients of the offence i.e. 'insult', 'intimidation' and
under clause (ii) insult can be caused to a member of the 'humiliation' of a member of the Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes by dumping excreta, Scheduled Tribe by person(s) not belonging to the aforesaid
waste matter, carcasses or any other obnoxious substance in categories in any place in public view must be satisfied.
his premises or neighborhood, and to cause such insult, the Expression 'public view' has been incorporated to mean that
dumping of excreta, etc. need not necessarily be done in the the persons, however small in number, should be independent,
presence of the person insulted and whereas under clause (x) impartial and not interested in any of the parties [12].
insult can be caused to the person insulted only if he is present The basic ingredients of the offence under Clause (x) of
in view of the expression 'in any place within public view'. Subsection (1)of Section 3 of the SC/ST Act are: (a) that there
The words 'within public view', in my opinion, are referable must be an 'intentional insult' or 'intimidation' with 'intend' to
only to the person insulted and not to the person who insulted humiliate SC/ST member by a non-SC/ST member, and (b)
him as the said expression is conspicuously absent in clause that insult must have been done in any place within the
(ii) of Section 3(1) of Act 3 of 1989. By avoiding to use the "public view". The use of expression 'intentional insult or
expression 'within public view' in clause (ii), the legislature, I intimidation' with 'intention' to humiliate, makes it abundantly
feel, has created two different kinds of offences, an insult clear that the mens rea is an essential ingredient of the offence
caused to a member of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled and it must also be established that the accused had the
Tribes, even in his absence, by dumping excreta, etc. in his knowledge that the victim is the SC/ST and that the offence
premises or neighborhood and an insult by words caused to a was committed for that reason. Merely calling a person by
                                                                                                                         
5 9
Victor Paul and another v. State (2002) MLJ (Crl.) 202 Gorige Pentaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2008 Cr.L.J. 350 SC
6 10
Daya Bhatnagar v. State of Delhi 2004 (109) DLT 915 Asmathunnisa v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2011) 11 SCC 259, Ruma Raha
7
E.Krishnan Nayanar v.Dr. M.A. Kuttapan and Another 1997Cr.Lj 2036 Dutta and Others v. The State of West Bengal and Anothers
8
‘acts with intent to cause injury, insult or annoyance to any member of a MANU/WB/0267/2014
11
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by dumping excreta, waste matter, Gowra Gobinda v. State of Orissa (2000)2 Cr.L.J. 1978
12
carcasses or any other obnoxious substance Ratikanta Ray v. State of Odisha 2015(I) OLR 917

11
International Journal of Law 

caste would not attract the provisions of this Act. There must remarks, hurled abuses against the complainant and threatened
be specific Accusation alleged against each of the accused him with dire consequences, the place of incident was a public
[13]
." place since it was an open field and according to the
Keeping in view the aims and objects of the Act of punishing complaints-version, witnesses were also present. Therefore, it
the offence of untouchability and commission of atrocities on could not be said that the incident did not taken place ‘in any
the persons belonging to SC and ST added to this, it must be place within public view’.The allegations in the FIR do not
noted that as per Section 3 itself, it must be prima facie shown make out any case as the alleged statement was not made at a
that the accused is not a member of SC or ST and this place within the public view. On going through the statement
humiliation by way of intentional insult or intimidation was it is seen that the statement was made at a shop and it is a
conducted in a place within public view [14]. place within public view and on that ground the offence
To attract the provisions of section 3 (1) (x), it is necessary alleged to have been committed by the petitioner under the
that the insult or the intimidation must be done at a place in Act cannot be quashed [23].
public view [15]. Today, the word ‘Chamar’ is often used by people belonging
to the so called upper castes or even by OBCs as a word of
“Intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to insult, abuse and derision. Calling a person ‘Chamar’ today is
humiliate a member of a scheduled caste or a scheduled nowadays an abusive language and is highly offensive. In fact,
tribe in any place within public view” the word ‘Chamar’ when used today is not normally used to
The judiciary on many occasions considered the offence denote a caste but to intentionally insult and humiliate
within the public view and sometimes not in public view. The someone. It may be mentioned that when we interpret Section
words used in sub section (x) are not ‘in public place’ but 3(1) (x) of the Act we have to see the purpose for which the
‘within public view’ which means the public must view the Act was enacted. It was obviously made to prevent indignities,
person being insulted for which he must be present and no humiliation and harassment to the members of SC/ST
offence on the allegations under the said section gets attracted. community, as is evident from the Statement of Objects &
The entire allegations contained in the complaint even if taken Reasons of the Act. Hence, while interpreting Section 3(1) (x)
to be true do not make out any offence against the petitioner of the Act, we have to take into account the popular meaning
[16]
. Accused intentionally insulted or intimidated complainant of the word 'Chamar' which it has acquired by usage, and not
and caused aspersion in public place calling his caste name as the etymological meaning. If we go by the etymological
scheduled caste citizen. Place of occurrence was within public meaning, we may frustrate the very object of the Act, and
view. Prosecution proved case beyond reasonable doubt; it hence that would not be a correct manner of interpretation.
was held no infirmity in Order passed by Court [17].
In Shetty’s Case [18] the Bombay High Court held “In various The supreme court in servai’s [24] case observed
decisions apart from the decision of Bai alias Laxmibai, this “This is the age of democracy and equality. No people or
court has time and again held that the expression ‘within community should be today insulted or looked down upon,
public view’ has specific meaning and in order to attract the and nobody's feelings should be hurt. This is also the spirit of
provision of law under Section 3(1) (x) of the Atrocities Act, our Constitution and is part of its basic features. Hence, in our
the acts amounting to insult or humiliation to the member of opinion, the so-called upper castes and OBCs should not use
Schedule Castes or Schedule Tribes should be visible and the word `Chamar' when addressing a member of the
audible to the public’. Whether the words were uttered in a Scheduled Caste, even if that person in fact belongs to the
public view or not is a question of fact which will have to be `Chamar' caste, because use of such a word will hurt his
decided during the trial [19]. The words used are ‘in any place feelings. In such a country like ours with so much diversity -
but within public view’ which means that the public view the so many religions, castes, ethnic and lingual groups, etc. All
person being insulted for which he must be present and no communities and groups must be treated with respect, and no
offence on the allegations under the said section gets attracted one should be looked down upon as an inferior. That is the
if the person is not present [20]. If incident has taken place in only way we can keep our country united. Keeping in view the
presence of villagers gathered near public tap to fetch water, it aims and objects of the Act of punishing the offence of
was held that incident has taken in ‘public view’ [21]. untouchability and commission of atrocities on the persons
In Anil Arora’s case [22] the accused persons used castiest belonging to SC and ST added to this, it must be noted that as
per Section 3 itself, it must be prima facie shown that the
                                                             accused is not a member of SC or ST and this humiliation by
13
Sajjan Kumar v. The State and Another 132 (2006) DLT 18 way of intentional insult or intimidation was conducted in a
14
Chikkapa and Others v. State by Sub Inspector of Police, Hangal Police
Station 2002 Cr.L.J. 518 place within public view [25]. On exhortation of one accused
15
Govind Das v. State of Orissa (2000) 1 Ker LJ (NOC) 43 (SC) other persons had caused ‘MAR PEET’ with the complainant
16
Supra n. 7 and also had humiliated him by making aspersion about his
17
Boologha Pandian and Kandiah Pandian v. State rep. by the Inspector of caste and also threatened him to kill. There was sufficient
Police MANU/TN/0749/2003
18
V.P. Shetty v. Senior Inspector of Police, Colaba, Mumbai and Another ground to proceed against them and a case is made out from
2005 Cr.Lj 3560 (Bomb.)
19
E.Tirupem Reddy v. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nandyal 2006 Cr.Lj                                                             
23
1606 (AP) K.Muhammed v. K. Sukumaran 2001Cr.Lj (ker)
20 24
Supra n. 10 Arumugam Servai v. State of Tamil Nadu 2011 (4) Scale 756
21 25
Chakradhar Gopinath Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra Chikkapa and Others v. State by Sub Inspector of Police, Hangal Police
22
Anil Arora and Others v. Babu Lal 2014 Cr.Lj 2008 (Uttrakhand) Station 2002 Cr.L.J. 518

12
International Journal of Law 

the facts on record” [26]. 1989. Perusal of contents of First Information Report as well
Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe as statement of complainant and other witnesses would show
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (the Act), there was that Applicants were not members of Scheduled Caste or
enough material on record to show prima-facie that in the Scheduled Tribe and complainant was member of Scheduled
presence of the villagers, the applicant was alleged to have Tribe. No intention or intimidation by accused against
hurled filthy abuses and threats to Complainant by taking the complainant as dispute arose on account of fact that livestock
name of his caste. It was not disputed by applicant that (goats) of Applicants grazed outstanding crop of complainant.
Complainant was a member of the Scheduled Tribe - No intention to commit as it was sudden fight took place
Therefore, for the purposes of framing charge, prima-facie a between complainant and Accused/Applicants and fight which
case under Section 3(1) (x) of the Act was made out since took place was not with intention to humiliate complainant
Complainant was alleged to have been humiliated by taking who was member of Scheduled Tribe and such dispute took
the name of his caste while being abused filthily in the place partly in front of the house of the complainant and inside
presence of the villagers [27]. the house of the applicants and it cannot be said to be in public
To constitute an offence under the section the person insulted view. Thus, ingredients of Section 3 (1) (x) amended as 3(1)
should be present at the time when the words were uttered (r) of Act, 1989 were prima facie lacking and provisions of
within public view [28]. Insult contemplated under Sub-section Act, 1989 were not attracted to present case [33]. If language
(ii) is different from the insult contemplated under Sub-section used was not made within public view or within public
(x) of Section 3 SC/ST Act. In the first case Scheduled Caste hearing, no offence could be made out under Section 3(1) (x)
or Scheduled Tribe gets insulted by the physical act and of Act, even if accepted by Petitioner that he did use language
whereas in the latter he gets insulted in public view by the as given in complaint. Complainant was not abused by
words uttered by the wrong doer for which he must be present Petitioner in his official Chamber in presence of others [34].
at the place. Sprinkling of cow dung water as part of purification ceremony
Calling a person by the caste-name "Chamar" with intention in the office premises would not constitute an atrocity against
of insulting or intimidating or humiliating would also a member of the Scheduled Caste. Cow-dung cannot be
constitute the offence rendered under the section 3(1)(x) of the considered as excreta. The word excreta used in Section 3(1)
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of (b) of the Act is in relation to human excreta and not any
Atrocities) Act, 1989. Witnesses corroborated the statement of animal waste [35]. Two days after his retirement, the premise
the complainant and they had been remained unrebutted on occupied by the de facto complainant was sprinkled with cow-
material point the teachers of the school clearly stated that the dung water by the accused, allegedly to remove the impurities
complainant was abused by caste name "Chamar" and caused by the de facto complainant. According to the
threatened to kill by the accused/ Appellant in the school prosecution, the accused by their conduct have committed the
which was a public place. Conviction order rightly passed [29]. offence punishable under Section 3(1) (b) and Section 3(1) (x)
“Even if the remark is made inside a building but some of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
members of the public are there (not merely relatives or Atrocities) Act. Sprinkling of cow dung water as part of
friends) then also it would be an offence since it is in public purification ceremony in the office premises would not
view. We, must, therefore, not confuse the ordinarily mean a constitute an atrocity against a member of the Scheduled
place which is owned or leased by the Government….. [30]. Caste.
On date of incident appellant demanded copy of revenue
Acts which were considered as ‘Not Within the public record which he was not in position to supply without
view’ permission of Court, therefore, appellant insulated him along
There are some instances also where the judiciary did not with other co- accused. Appellant has not stated anything to
consider the act of atrocities/insulting in his caste name show that appellant was assaulted or insulted by respondent on
‘within the public view’. To constitute an offence when insult ground of his caste, but evidence shows that appellant was
or intimidation has been done in a place within public view, assaulted by respondent on account of demand of copy of
but when the things had transpired in an office of a company. revenue record, even he has not stated in his evidence that
There was no material to show that the office was visible to what words appellant has used. Evidence is admitted that
public at large, hence no offence under section 3 (1) (x) was appellant has insulted or assaulted respondent on ground of his
made out [31]. caste. While convicting appellant under Act, trial court has not
In Pappu Singh [32] it was held that simply addressing a person considered most material aspect of case and essential
by his caste without any intention to insult or intimidate does ingredients of offence and thereby committed illegality [36].
not constitute offence under section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled 'The alleged incident in that case had been taken place in the
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, chamber of the complainant, who was working as the
commercial tax officer. The argument raised on behalf of the
                                                             accused, that assuming the allegations are true, yet the
26
Gaurav Aggarwal v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2009 Cr.L.J. 4491 (All)
27
Ayodha Prasad Soni v. State of C.G. 2006 (3) CGLJ 254                                                             
28 33
Supra n. 7 Umesh Parsad v. State of Chhattisgarh 2015 (1) CGLJ 245
29 34
Bhagirathi Sahu v. State of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chattisgarh) 2009(3) Ashim Kumar Chattrjee v. State of Jharkhand and Another (2013) J.L.J.R.
CGLJ 270 69
30 35
Swaran Singh v State 2008 Cr.L.J. 4369 (SC) Gireesh Kumar A. & Another v. State of Kerala and Another ILR (2012) 4
31
Alka A. Misra v. J.P. Shoke 2003 Cr.L.J. 1333 Kerala 125
32 36
Pappu Singh v. State of U.P. 2002 Cr.Lj. 1251 Manharan v. State of M.P. MANU/C.G./0102/2010

13
International Journal of Law 

occurrence having taken place in the chamber of the that insult or intimidation has been done in a place within
complainant, it cannot be said that the offence was committed public view. If the things happened in office of a company, it
in any place within ''public view'' was accepted [37]. From the cannot be said that the office was visible to public at large.
material on record in the case diary, further it cannot be said Therefore, no offence made out [44]. If the entire occurrence
that the incident took place at a place within public view. The had taken place inside and “within the bounded are of the
words used in the provision are in any place within ''public house of the complainant and not in any place within public
view and not in a ''public place''. There is clearly a distinction view” no offence under section 3(1) (x) made out [45].
between an incident taking place within public view and an In Suhail Fasih [46] case the complainant had gone to the
incident taking place within public place [38].'' Government Quarter on the first floor to take her wages, the
The expression ''public view'' employed in Section 3(1)(x) of accused called her ‘Saali Dhobin’. It was held that place
the SC/ST Act, came for consideration in a case before a cannot be said to be ‘within public view’.
Division Bench of the Delhi High Court. In the said case, the
defacto complainant is a member of Scheduled Caste. He was Epilogue
staying in a flat along with his family. The accused were To conclude this article, the atrocities must be done in public
residing in the same flats. They were alleged to have called view. The place may be private or public but is should be in
the defacto complainant and his wife by their caste. It was public view. Minimum two independent witnesses must be
contended that the occurrence did not take place in public present there. Independent means that the witnesses should not
view as no public person was present. Justice V.S. Agarwal be related to victim in any manner. Intention to insult the
(as His Lordship then was) took the view that for the purpose victim must be present. If the mens rea is not present then the
of 'public view' employed in Section 3(1) (x) of SC/ST Act, it act will not be considered the act of insult. Intention to insult
is not necessary that a huge crowd must present, it is enough the victim should be there. The most essential ingredient is
two or more members of the public were present, heard and that the complainant must be present when the words are
viewed, as four persons residing in the same flats viewed the uttered or he has been insulted. If the person who has been
occurrence, the occurrence had taken place in public view [39]. insulted or words have been uttered is not present then this
If the entire complaint is perused there is not even a single section will not attract.
word mentioned by the complainant that she belongs to
Scheduled Caste and that the petitioners intentionally and References
knowing her to be a member of the Scheduled Caste had 1. Commentary on the Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled
uttered the words attributed to them so as to insult her [40]. Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act By Yewer Qazalbash
There was no material on the record much less in the written Published by Universal Law Publishing Co. New Delhi,
report presented by informant that occurrence took place 2012.
within public view as contemplated under Section 3(1)(x) of 2. Commentary on The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
the Act. It was found that neither the offence under Section Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 as amended by
3(1) (x) nor under Section 3(1) (xi) of the Act was made out The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes
against the Petitioner and that apart [41]. Prevention of Atrocities Amendment Act, 2015 1 of 2016
We must, therefore not confuse the expression 'place within By Majumdar Published by Dwivedi Law Agency,
public view' with the expression 'public place'. A place can be Allahabad, 2016.
a private place but yet within the public view. On the other 3. The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Prevention
hand, a public place would ordinarily mean a place which is of Atrocities Act, 1989 & Rules, 1995 with Protection of
owned or leased by the Government or the municipality for Civil Rights Act, 1995 & Rules, 1977 By Justice P.S.
other local body) or gaon sabha or an instrumentality of the Narayana’s Published by Gogia Law Agency, Hyderabad,
State, and not by private persons or private bodies [42]. Simply 2015.
calling any person by caste name does not attract provisions of 4. The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Prevention
the Act. Other ingredients are necessary in the complaint to of Atrocities Act, 1989 with Rules & Allied Laws By
constitute an offence under section 3 (1) (x). ‘Idiot’ and S.K. Awasthi Published by Premier Publishing Company,
‘nonsense’ uttered against a member of Scheduled Caste, it Allahabad, 2015.
was held by the High Court that these words have not 5. The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Prevention
reference to the community and from those “words it cannot of Atrocities Act, 1989 as amended by the Scheduled
be inferred that the intention or intimidation are with reference Castes and the Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities
to the community to which complainant belonged” [43]. Amendment Act, 2015 Act no 1 of 2016 Bare Act,
To attract the provisions of section 3 (1) (x), it is necessary Published by Taxmann’s.
6. www.Manupatra.com Data base directory
                                                            
37
Chandra Poojari v. State of Karnataka (1998) 1 Cr.L.J. 53
38
Karan Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1992) 3 Cr.L.J. 3054
39
Supra n. 5
40
M.L. Ohri and Others v. Kanta Devi 2009(4)SCT38(P&H)
41
Md. Nisarul Haq v. The State of Jharkhand and Prakash Ram
MANU/JH/0173/2011                                                             
42 44
Swarn Singh and Others v. State AIR 2008 SC (Supp) 441 Alka A. Misra v. J.P.Shoke 2003 Cr.L.J. 1333(Bomb)
43 45
Ravinder Kumar Mishra v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1995 Cr.L.J. 3060 Gorkhi Ram v. State of Haryana 2006 Cr.L.J. 4385 (P & H)
46
(MP) Suhail Fasih v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2012 Cr.L.J. (NOC) 177 (All)

14