THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY Criminal Appeal No.1171 of 2008 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 27.08.2008 passed in SC ST SC No.108 of 2007 by the learned Special Judge for trial of cases under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act-cum-VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool. 2. The appellants/A1 to A3 were tried by the learned Special Judge for the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (for short „the Act‟) and Section 324 IPC. They were further tried for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act alternatively under Section 354 IPC. 3. Substance of the charge against the accused is that, on 30.06.2006, at about 03.00 pm, A1 abused PW.1, and A2 and A3 abused PWs.4 and 5, who are members of Scheduled Caste, in the name of their caste, thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. In the course of SRK, J Crl.A.No.1171 of 2008 2 same transaction, A1 to A3 beat PW.1 with sticks on his left wrist and on his back and caused injuries, thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC. In the course of same transaction, A1 to A3, not being the members of either Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, outraged the modesty of PWs.4 and 5 by holding their tufts, thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act alternatively under Section 354 IPC. 4. After completion of trial, learned Special Judge convicted A1 of the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act and sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only), in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month. Further, A1 to A3 were convicted of the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC and sentenced them to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (3) months each. A2 and A3 were found not guilty of the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act and they were acquitted of the said charge. A1 to A3 were also found not guilty of the offence SRK, J Crl.A.No.1171 of 2008 3 under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act alternatively under Section 354 IPC and they were acquitted of the said charge. 5. Case of the prosecution, briefly, is as follows. i) PW.1 is a resident of Bollakuntla village and belongs to Madiga by caste, as such he is a member of Scheduled Caste. On 30.06.2006, PWs.1 and 2, along with one Subbadu (LW.9), went to the fields and after completion of work, at about 03.00 pm, they started returning to their houses. While returning, PWs.1 and 2 went into the bushes, situated in the open site of A1, for attending calls of nature. LW.9 Subbadu left the place and went away. On seeing PWs.1 and 2 attending calls of nature in his site, A1 went there and abused PW.1 touching his caste. When PW.1 tried to reply, A1 grew wild and beat him with a stick on his left wrist. In the meantime, A2 and A3 came there and beat PW.1 on his back with sticks and caused injuries. Later, A1 to A3 beat PWs.1 and 2 with hands and kicked them with legs. On coming to know about the incident, PWs.3 to 5 and others rushed to the spot. Then, A1 to A3 abused PWs.4 and 5 in the name of their caste and dragged them on to the road and outraged their modesty. SRK, J Crl.A.No.1171 of 2008 4 ii) On receipt of intimation under Ex.P5 from the Government Hospital, Nandyal, PW.8 recorded the statement of PW.1 and registered the same as a case in Crime No.92 of 2006, for the offences under Sections 3(1)(x) of the Act and 324 and 354 IPC and issued FIR Ex.P6. PW.6 is the Deputy Civil Surgeon, District Hospital, Nandyal, who examined PW.1 and issued wound certificate Ex.P2 opining that all the three injuries received by PW.1 are simple in nature and they might have been caused by sticks. PW.7 is the Tahsildar, who issued caste certificate under Ex.P3 stating that PW.1 belongs to Madiga by caste, as such he is a member of Scheduled Caste. PW.9 is the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who took up investigation, recorded the statements of witnesses, prepared rough sketch of the scene under Ex.P8 and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences. 6. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Allagadda took cognizance of the case as PRC No.10 of 2006 and committed the case to the Court of the learned Special Judge for trial of cases under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act-cum-VI Additional District SRK, J Crl.A.No.1171 of 2008 5 and Sessions Judge, Kurnool, which took the case on file and numbered it as SC ST SC No.108 of 2007. 7. On appearance of A1 to A3, charges under Sections 3(1)(x) of the Act and Section 324 IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act alternatively under Section 354 IPC were framed, read over the contents of the charges and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 8. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P8. 9. When the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the incriminating material appearing against them and reported no defence evidence, except marking Ex.D1. 10. The learned Special Judge, on appreciation of entire oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted and sentenced A1 to A3 as aforesaid, vide impugned judgment dated 27.08.2008. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present Criminal Appeal has been preferred. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants/A1 to A3 submitted that the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act would not SRK, J Crl.A.No.1171 of 2008 6 attract against A1 for the reason that the place where the alleged incident is said to have taken place would not come within the purview of „public view‟. In support of his contention, he relied upon the decisions reported in Karuppudayar v. State, rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lalgudi Trichy1 and Daya Bhatnagar v. State2. 12. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent/State submitted that there is accusation to the extent that the accused beat PW.1 with sticks and abused PWs.4 and 5 by their caste and the learned Special Judge has rightly convicted the accused for the aforesaid offences, which calls for no interference by this Court. 13. Heard. Perused the record. 14. All the material prosecution witnesses are residents of Boilakuntla village and they are related to each other. PW.1 deposed that on 30.06.2006, at about 01.00 pm, he, along with PW.2 and another namely Subbadu (LW.9), went to his fields for doing agricultural works. They started returning home at about 03.00 pm. At that time, PW.2 informed PW.1 that he wanted to 1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 215 2 2004 Law Suit (Del) 1. SRK, J Crl.A.No.1171 of 2008 7 attend calls of nature near new plots of their village. Thereafter, they attended calls of nature and Subbadu (LW.9), who was accompanying them, went away to his house. PW.1 further stated that while he and PW.2 were easing, A1 came and started abusing them as “Yemira Madiga Naa Kodukullara Maa Indla Stalamu Daggaraku Vatchi Latrine Kurchunttara” and A1 beat him (PW.1) with country stick on his left wrist. In the meantime, A2 and A3 came there by holding country sticks and they beat him (PW.1) on his back with those sticks. A2 beat PW.2 with a stick on his back side of left foot. All the accused pulled them down to the ground and beat them with legs and chappals. Later, when PWs.4 and 5 came to the scene of offence, all the accused caught hold of the tufts of PWs.4 and 5, beat them and abused them by their caste. 15. PW.2 corroborated the evidence of P.W.1. PW.3 deposed that when he reached the place, he noticed A1 to A3 beating PWs.1 and 2. PWs.4 and 5 went to the scene of offence at a belated stage and noticed A1 to A3 beating PWs.1 and 2. PWs.4 and 5 deposed that when they questioned the accused, all the accused caught hold of their tufts and abused them by their caste. SRK, J Crl.A.No.1171 of 2008 8 16. The learned Special Judge convicted A.1 of the offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act on the ground that the prosecution established that he abused P.W.1 in the name of his caste with an intention to insult him and to humiliate him in a place within public view, and extended benefit of doubt in favour of A.2 and A.3 in view of the fact that the prosecution failed to establish caste of P.Ws.4 and 5, and accordingly acquitted A.2 and A.3 of the said offence. Further, the learned Special Judge acquitted all the accused of the offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act, alternatively, under Section 354 IPC. In the circumstances, the short point that arises for consideration is whether the abuses hurled by the accused on PW1 would come within the purview of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act or not. 17. The said aspect has been discussed at length in Karuppudayar’s case (supra), wherein the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held as follows. “8. For appreciating the rival submissions, it will be apposite to refer to the provisions of Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC-ST Act, which read thus: SRK, J Crl.A.No.1171 of 2008 9 “3. Punishments for offences of atrocities.— (1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,-- (a) ………………………………………… (b) ………………………………………… xxx xxx xxx (r) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view; (s) abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view;” 9. A perusal of Section 3(1)(r) of the SC-ST Act would reveal that for constituting an offence thereunder, it has to be established that the accused intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view. Similarly, for constituting an offence under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC-ST Act, it will be necessary that the accused abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view. 10. The term “any place within public view” initially came up for consideration before this Court in the case of Swaran Singh and others v. State through Standing Counsel, ((2008) 8 SCC 435). This Court SRK, J Crl.A.No.1171 of 2008 10 in the case of Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, ((2020) 10 SCC 710), referred to Swaran Singh (supra) and reiterated the legal position as under: “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 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1171 of 2008 11 the gate of a house is certainly a place within 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)” 11. It could thus be seen that, to be a place „within public view‟, the place should be open where the members of the public can witness or hear the utterance made by the accused to the victim. If the alleged offence takes place within the four corners of the wall where members of the public are not present, then it cannot be said that it has taken place at a place within public view.” 18. On a plain reading of the aforesaid decision goes to show that, to be a place „within public view‟, the place should be open where the members of the public can witness or hear the SRK, J Crl.A.No.1171 of 2008 12 utterance made by the accused to the victim. If the alleged offence takes place within the four corners of the wall where members of the public are not present, then it cannot be said that it has taken place at a place within public view. 19. In the case on hand, admittedly, the alleged incident is said to have taken place in new plots of the village. But, at the same time, it is not the case of the prosecution that there is any other member in the said place, except PWs.1 and 2 and A1. Subsequently, at a belated stage, PWs.3 to 5 came to the spot. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that PWs.3 to 5 would not come within the definition of public for the reason that they are all interrelated to each other and they are interested witnesses. 20. The expression “public view” narrated in Section 3(1)(x) of the Act would mean within the view which includes hearing, knowledge or accessibility also, of a group of people of the place/locality/village as distinct from few who are not private and are as good as strangers and not linked with the defacto complainant through any close relationship or any business, commercial or any other vested interest and who are not SRK, J Crl.A.No.1171 of 2008 13 participating members with him in any way. If such group of people comprises anyone of these, it would not satisfy the requirement of „public view‟ within the meaning of the expression used under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. 21. In the said background, going by the prosecution case, it is quite evident that except PWs.1 and 2 and A1, there was no other member, who is a stranger to the witnesses i.e. PWs.1 and 2. Subsequently, at a belated stage, A2 and A3 joined A1 and all are alleged to have beat PWs.1 and 2. Thereafter, PWs.4 and 5 came and questioned the accused about their acts. On that, the accused are alleged to have caught hold of the tufts of PWs.4 and 5 and abused them by their caste. The learned Special Judge found A1 to A3 not guilty of the offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act alternatively under Section 354 IPC and acquitted them of the said charge. The learned Special Judge convicted only A1 for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. 22. A perusal of the entire material on record and the expression “public view” narrated in Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, this Court has no hesitation to come to a conclusion that the SRK, J Crl.A.No.1171 of 2008 14 offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act would not attract against A1, for the reason that though the alleged incident is said to have taken place in a public place, but since there were no strangers present during the relevant point of time, the same would not come within the purview of „public view‟ as per the expression that is used in Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. 23. 23. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, appellant No.1/A1 is found not guilty of the charge under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, accordingly, the conviction and sentence recorded against appellant No.1/A1 for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act in the Judgment, dated 27.08.2008, in SC ST SC No.108 of 2007 on the file of the learned Special Judge for trial of cases under the SCs & the STs (PoA) Act-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Kurnool, are hereby set aside. Appellant No.1/A1 is acquitted of the said charge and he is set at liberty. The bail bonds, if any, shall stand discharged. Fine amount, if any, paid by appellant No.1/A1 shall be refunded to him. 24. However, insofar as the offence under Section 324 IPC is concerned, this Court concurs with the conviction and sentence SRK, J Crl.A.No.1171 of 2008 15 recorded against the appellants herein/A1 to A3 under the said charge, for causing simple hurt to PWs.1 and 2 and the same is hereby confirmed. 25. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Appeal, shall stand closed. _______________________ K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J Date :01.05.2025 Nsr SRK, J Crl.A.No.1171 of 2008 16 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY Criminal Appeal No.1171 of 2008 Date: 01.05.2025 Nsr