It is most significant to note that while ruling on a very vital legal point, the Jharkhand High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest oral judgment titled Baijnath Singh vs State of Jharkhand in Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 419 of 2012 that was pronounced as recently as on February 15, 2024 has minced just no words whatsoever to hold clearly that to attract liability under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act), the altercation or assault must have been intended to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. We thus see that the Court after perusing the facts of the case and the material on record most carefully and so also after patiently hearing both the sides in its notable judgment dismissed an appeal challenging the conviction under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act. It also must be stated that the Court made it unequivocally clear that mere altercation or dispute alone do not automatically trigger the criminal provisions of the SC/ST Act.
It would be in the fitness of things to pay singular attention to what the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary of Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi observed most unambiguously that, “The assault should have been with intent to humiliate and any altercation or dispute will not, ipso facto, attract the criminal provision of the special Act, unless and until the said Act was intended to humiliate the member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.” The appellant’s conviction and sentence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act were thus rightly overturned. However, it merits noting that the conviction under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code was upheld based on oral evidence. It is also worth mentioning that the Bench held that considering the nature of the offence and the circumstances, the appellants are ordered to be released with a warning for the offence under Section 323, pursuant to Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary of Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “The judgment of conviction under Section 3 (1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default, simple imprisonment of two months, and rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code, is under challenge in the instant appeal.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 2 that, “As per the FIR, on 11.01.2008 when the informant Prakash Das was standing at the door of his house, the appellants came up in a drunken condition and abused him by calling his caste name and also assaulted the informant. The informant in order to save his life entered into the house and then both the accused persons started pelting stones. The genesis of offences is stated to be that the informant had been making excessive charge for pumping set hired for irrigation purpose.”
Do note, the Bench notes in para 3 that, “Jarmundi PS Case No. 09 of 2008 was registered under Sections 341, 323, 448, 504, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against both the appellants.”
Do also note, the Bench notes in para 4 that, “Police on investigation found the case true and submitted charge sheet under Sections 341, 323, 448, 504, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. After cognizance, charge was framed and accused persons were put on trial.”
As things stands, the Bench specifies in para 5 that, “Altogether six witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and the relevant documents were adduced into evidence, marked as exhibits. After prosecution evidence, the statements of the appellants have been recorded.”
As we see, the Bench then discloses in para 6 that, “The specific defence taken by appellant Baijnath Singh is that he was the victim of assault by the informant and he also managed to send him jail. On behalf of the defence, documentary evidence regarding previous litigations have been adduced into evidence and marked as exhibits.”
As it turned out, the Bench while elaborating mentions in para 7 that, “Judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been assailed on the ground that it was the informant who had assaulted the appellants regarding which appellant Baijnath Singh had lodged Jarmundi PS Case No. 10 of 2008 on 11.01.2008 with regard to incidence that took place on the same day under Sections 341, 323, 307, 504 of the Indian Penal Code. In the said incidence, appellant Baijnath Singh was assaulted with iron rod as will be apparent from the FIR (Ext-D). Counter to the said case, instant case has been lodged by invoking special provision of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.”
Simply put, the Bench points out in para 8 that, “Further, in the present case, no independent witness has been examined and out of four material witnesses, PW5 is the informant and PWs 1 and 3 are his brother and mother. PW2 is also the relative of the informant. The genesis of offence has been stated in the FIR to be the dispute arising out of charges levied for irrigation purpose by the pumping set of the informant. However, the prosecution evidence will falsify the allegation that the appellants had any dispute with regard to irrigation of pumping set with the informant. PW2 Manoj Kumar Das has specifically stated in para 1 that the dispute was not between these appellants and informant, but was between one Diwakant Das and the informant. On being requested by PW2 to intercede and pacify the dispute, both of them went there and assaulted him.”
Truly speaking, the Bench discloses in para 9 that, “The informant himself has admitted in para 3 of the cross-examination that he had no dispute with regard to irrigation of land with the appellants. The dispute was between Diwakant Das who was the cousin of the informant.”
It is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 10 that, “It is further argued that the assault took place not because of caste of the informant but on account of dispute that he had with one Diwakant Das in which the appellants tried to mediate, but was assaulted by the father of the informant, regarding which Baijnath Singh had lodged a case against the father of the informant being Jarmundi PS Case No. 10 of 2008. Appellant Baijnath Singh was injured in the said assault which has come in the testimony of PW 2 in para 4.”
Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 11 that, “It is further argued that it was the informant party who had been committing breach of peace as they were very much large in number and a proceeding under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. was initiated by the SDM in which the appellants were the first party. Notices issued have been adduced into evidence as marked as Ext. A and A/1. PW3- mother of the informant has accepted in para 5 of her deposition. On this evidence, it is argued that the genesis of offences was not the caste of the informant but was a dispute unrelated to the caste relation of the informant.”
Needless to say, the Bench states in para 12 that, “Learned counsel for the State has defended the judgment of conviction and order of sentence.”
Quite significantly, the Bench observes in para 13 that, “Having considered the arguments advanced on behalf of both sides and on perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, it is apparent that the incidence took place on 11.01.2008 regarding which case and counter case was lodged. Appellant Baijnath Singh lodged Jarmundi PS Case No. 10 of 2008 against the father of the informant. It has also come in evidence that appellant Baijnath Singh was also injured in the said incidence. The immediate genesis of evidence was not any dispute between the appellants and the informant, rather it was a dispute between the informant and one Diwakant Das. It has also come in evidence that number of families of the caste of the informant Prakash Das was 60 to 70 whereas number of families of the caste of the appellant was 10 to 15.”
Most significantly, the Bench mandates in para 14 propounding that, “On these materials, this Court is of the view that the altercation took place between both sides in which appellant Baijnath Singh was also injured and the informant was also injured leading to case and counter case. In order to make out a case under Section 3 (1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the victim should have intentionally insulted or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view. It is necessary that the assault should have been with intent to humiliate and any altercation of dispute will not, ipso facto, attract the criminal provision of the special Act, unless and until the said act was intended to humiliate the member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Free fight manner which took place cannot by any stretch of imagination be said to have been with intent to humiliate the informant by caste name. It has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, (2020) 10 SCC 710.”
Finally and far most significantly, the Bench concludes by holding in para 13 that, “The offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act would indicate the ingredient of intentional insult and intimidation with an intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. All insults or intimidations to a person will not be an offence under the Act unless such insult or intimidation is on account of victim belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Under the circumstance, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence under Section 3 (1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is set aside against the appellant. So far as conviction under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code is concerned, in view of oral evidence, the conviction is affirmed. On the point of sentence, considering the genesis of offence and the overall facts and circumstance of the case, Appellants are directed to be released on admonition for the offence under Section 323 in view of Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The Cr. Appeal is dismissed with modification in finding of sentence.”
In conclusion, we thus see that the Jharkhand High Court has left no stone unturned to make it crystal clear that an altercation or assault without intent to humiliate will not attract offence under the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It is definitely the bounden duty of all the courts to emulate such worthy judgments and rule similarly in similar such cases and not promptly order conviction without going through the case properly. There can be just no denying it!
Sanjeev Sirohi