1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 529 of 2024 Krishna Ram @ Krishna Chandravanshi age 59 years son of late Raj Kishore Ram , resident of Nawatoli, Ward No. 23, P.O. , Daltonganj, P.S. Daltonganj ( Town), District-Palamau … Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Pramod Kumar, S/o Sri Sakul Ram, R/o-vill- Nawatoli , near Navketan hall, …… Respondents ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Appellant : Mr. Ayush Kr. Verma, Advocate For the State : Mr. Nawin Kumar Singh ,A.P.P. ….. Order No.09 / Dated: 24.03.2025 This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant by challenging the order dated 17.07.2017 passed by learned Special Judge ( SC/ST) Act Palamau at Daltonganj by which the learned Special Judge ( SC/ST) Act Palamau at Daltonganj has taken cognizance against the appellant for the offences under sections 504/506 of the I.P.C. and under sections 3(1) (r) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in connection with Palamau SC/ST P.S. Case No. 3/17 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 376/2017 , SC/ST Case No. 17 of 2017 . 2. As per the F.I.R., it is alleged that the appellant and his daughter had abused the Informant in the name of his caste and threatened her of dire consequences while he was crossing and also threatened to close the public way, on the ground that the appellant’s son-in-law Shailendra Chadravanshi is a Member of Ziula Parishad . 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel of the State. 2 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that impugned order passed by the learned Court below is not sustainable in eye of law. It is submitted that the entire family members threatened the Informant, however the police has submitted the charge-sheet only against the appellant. It is submitted that occurrence had not taken place in the public view and disputes between the parties are civil in nature. It is submitted that the appellant had also instituted Palamau Sadar P.S. Case No. 132 of 2017 against the Informant of the present case for the offence under section 354 of I.P.C as the Informant had entered into house of the appellant and tried to outrage the modesty of the daughters of the appellant and hence impugned order may be set-aside and this Criminal Appeal may be allowed. 5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer of the appellant and has submitted that there is direct allegation against the appellant for abusing the Informant in the name of his Caste. It is submitted that several persons has seen the occurrence. It is submitted that the Informant has already purchased the public road in front of his gate from the accused appellant and for which he already paid Rs. 50,000/-. It is submitted that the appellant has abused several times in the name of his caste. It is also submitted that the police had also submitted charge-sheet against the appellant for the offences under sections 504/506 of the I.P.C. and under sections 3(1)(r) of SC/ST Act. and hence this Criminal Appeal may be dismissed. 6. Perused the Lower Court Records and considered the submission of both the sides. 7. It appears from the F.I.R. that the appellant and her daughter are alleged to have abused the Informant in the name 3 of his caste and threatened him of dire consequences while passing through the land. 8. It appears from the F.I.R. that there is nothing to indicate that the abuse were given in public view . 9. It has been held in the case of Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710 : (2021) 1 SCC (Cri) 1 : 2020 SCC OnLine SC 907 at page 715 that offence under section 310 of SC/ST is not attracted if the abuse had not given in the public view as follows:- “Para 14:- Another key ingredient of the provision is insult or intimidation in “any place within public view”. What is to be regarded as “place in public view” had come up for consideration before this Court in the judgment reported as Swaran Singh v. State [Swaran Singh v. State, (2008) 8 SCC 435 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 527] . The Court had drawn distinction between the expression “public place” and “in any place within public view”. It was held that if an offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, then the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. On the contrary, if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then it would not be an offence since it is not in the public view (sic) [Ed. : This sentence appears to be contrary to what is stated below in the extract from Swaran Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 435, at p. 736d-e, and in the application of this principle in para 15, below:“Also, even if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then also it would be an offence since it is in the public view.”] . The Court held as under : (SCC pp. 443-44, para 28) “28. It has been alleged in the FIR that Vinod Nagar, the first informant, was insulted by Appellants 2 and 3 (by calling him a “chamar”) when he stood near the car which was parked at the gate of the premises. In our opinion, this was certainly a place within public view, since the gate of a house is certainly a place within 4 public view. It could have been a different matter had the alleged offence been committed inside a building, and also was not in the public view. However, if the offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. Also, even if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then also it would be an offence since it is in the public view. We must, therefore, not confuse the expression “place within public view” with the expression “public place”. A place can be a private place but yet within the public view. On the other hand, a public place would ordinarily mean a place which is owned or leased by the Government or the municipality (or other local body) or gaon sabha or an instrumentality of the State, and not by private persons or private bodies.” (emphasis in original) “Para 15:-As per the FIR, the allegations of abusing the informant were within the four walls of her building. It is not the case of the informant that there was any member of the public (not merely relatives or friends) at the time of the incident in the house. Therefore, the basic ingredient that the words were uttered “in any place within public view” is not made out. In the list of witnesses appended to the charge-sheet, certain witnesses are named but it could not be said that those were the persons present within the four walls of the building. The offence is alleged to have taken place within the four walls of the building. Therefore, in view of the judgment of this Court in Swaran Singh [Swaran Singh v. State, (2008) 8 SCC 435 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 527] , it cannot be said to be a place within public view as none was said to be present within the four walls of the building as per the FIR and/or charge-sheet. 10. It appears that there is a case and counter case between the parties and the dispute relates to common passages which is said to lie also out side the house of the appellant. 5 11. Thus ,the order dated 17.07.2017 passed by learned Special Judge ( SC/ST) Act Palamau at Daltonganj is set- aside and the matter is remitted before the learned Court below to pass fresh order in accordance with law within the period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 12. Thus, this Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 529 of 2024 is allowed and remitted back to the learned Court below with the above observation. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Bibha/