In Rabindra Kumar Chhatoi v. State of Odisha, the Supreme Court ruled that the backyard of a private house does not qualify as a "public view" under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act, discharging the appellant from charges of caste-based abuse and related IPC offences.
Citation:
Date of Judgement: 5th December 2024
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: B.V. Nagarathna (J), Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh (J)
Facts
- In 2024, Rabindra Kumar Chhatoi faced allegations under Sections 294 and 506 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (pre-amendment). The second respondent, a Scheduled Caste member, accused the appellant of intentionally insulting and intimidating her with caste-based remarks in the backyard of his private house.
- The complainant, accompanied by her employees, entered the appellant's backyard without prior permission to carry out repair work on her adjacent house. The appellant objected to this trespass and allegedly used the offending language.
- The appellant filed an application under Section 239 of the CrPC before the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar, seeking discharge on the ground that the backyard of a private house does not constitute a place within “public view” as required under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act.
Decision of the Ld. Trial Court (Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar)
The trial court, on August 2, 2019, rejected the appellant’s application under Section 239 of the CrPC seeking discharge. It held that the allegations made by the complainant prima facie disclosed an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The court found that the alleged use of caste-based insults was sufficient to proceed with the trial. It concluded that the location of the incident being the backyard of a private house and the presence of employees accompanying the complainant required examination during the trial stage, not at the stage of discharge.
Decision of the High Court (Orissa High Court)
The appellant challenged the trial court’s decision by filing a Criminal Revision Petition before the Orissa High Court. On November 13, 2019, the High Court upheld the trial court’s rejection of the discharge application. It reasoned that the presence of the complainant’s employees during the alleged incident could potentially bring the matter within the purview of “public view” as required under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act. The High Court emphasized that such factual disputes were better resolved during the trial and refused to interfere with the trial court’s findings.
Appeal to the Supreme Court
Dissatisfied with the High Court’s judgment, the appellant approached the Supreme Court. The appellant argued that the backyard of a private house does not constitute a place within “public view” as per the SC/ST Act and that the employees accompanying the complainant could not be considered the “public in general.” The Supreme Court took up the matter to address the interpretation of “public view” under the Act and its implications for the legitimacy of the allegations.
Decision of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the High Court of Orissa and the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar, discharging the appellant, Rabindra Kumar Chhatoi, from all charges under Sections 294 and 506 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The Court held that the backyard of a private house does not qualify as a place within “public view” under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act. It emphasized that the term “public view” requires the presence of unrelated and general members of the public who can witness the alleged act, which was not the case here. The complainant's employees, who accompanied her for repair work, were specifically associated with her and could not be considered “public in general.”
The Court further relied on its earlier judgment in Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand[1], underscoring that civil disputes between parties do not automatically constitute an offence under the SC/ST Act unless clear evidence of caste-based abuse is presented. It highlighted that the allegations in this case stemmed from a private property dispute rather than an act of caste-based discrimination.
The Supreme Court clarified that strict adherence to the statutory language and conditions of the SC/ST Act is crucial to prevent its misuse in private disputes. The judgment discharged the appellant from the charges, setting aside the orders of both lower courts, and directed that this decision does not prejudice any future civil or criminal proceedings based on different facts or evidence.
Key legal issues discussed
1. Does the backyard of a private house qualify as a place within "public view" under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act?
No
The Court emphasized that the phrase “public view” in Section 3(1)(x) is not a mere reference to any location but requires that the act occurs in a space where it can be witnessed by unrelated and impartial members of the general public. Private properties such as backyards, even if accessed by specific individuals, do not meet this criterion unless those individuals represent the general public and are not directly associated with either party. This interpretation is consistent with ensuring that the SC/ST Act is applied strictly in line with its statutory requirements.
Court Observation (Paragraph 13 of the judgement):“The place of occurrence of the alleged offence was at the backyard of the appellant’s house. The backyard of a private house cannot be within the public view. The persons who accompanied the second respondent (complainant) were also the employees or the labour force she had engaged for the purpose of carrying out repairs to her house which is adjacent to the appellant’s house. They cannot also be termed as public in general.”
2. Can employees of a complainant be considered the “public” under Section 3(1)(x)?
No
The term “public” as used in the SC/ST Act refers to unrelated and impartial individuals who are present at the location by coincidence or happenstance, not individuals specifically associated with either party. In this case, the complainant’s employees were there as part of her repair work and had a professional relationship with her. The Court reasoned that their presence did not transform the private backyard into a public space or fulfill the condition of “public view.”
Court Observation (Paragraph 13 of the judgement):“The persons who accompanied the second respondent were also the employees or the labour force she had engaged for the purpose of carrying out repairs to her house which is adjacent to the appellant’s house. They cannot also be termed as public in general.”
3. Does a civil dispute between the parties influence the interpretation of caste-based harassment under the SC/ST Act?
Yes
The SC/ST Act is intended to address genuine instances of caste-based abuse or harassment, not to be used as an instrument in disputes that stem from other causes, such as property disagreements. In this case, the Court noted that a civil dispute existed between the appellant's wife and the complainant, which could have motivated the allegations. The Court held that unless there was direct evidence of caste-based abuse, the SC/ST Act should not be applied. This principle was consistent with the judgment in Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand.
Court Observation (Paragraph 15 of the judgement):“Where there is a dispute regarding possession of property before the Civil Court, any dispute arising on account of possession of the said property would not disclose an offence under the Act unless the victim is abused, intimidated, or harassed only for the reason that she belongs to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.”
4. Does the rejection of a discharge application preclude a challenge based on procedural grounds?
No
While the trial court and the High Court reasoned that the facts were better addressed during the trial, the Supreme Court held that procedural and jurisdictional challenges could still be examined at the stage of discharge. In this case, the procedural requirement of “public view” under Section 3(1)(x) was not met, which warranted the appellant’s discharge. The Court highlighted that failing to meet this condition undermined the allegations and rendered the charges invalid.
Court Observation (Paragraph 17 of the judgement):“In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned order dated 13.11.2019 passed by the High Court of Orissa in Criminal Revision No.580 of 2019 and also the order dated 02.08.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar. The appellant is discharged from the offences alleged to have been committed by him.”
[1] 2020 10 SCC 710.
