RAMESH CHANDRA VAISHYA versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

Citation: [2023] 6 S.C.R. 643 · Decided: 19-05-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAVINDRA BHAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
643
   [2023] 6 S.C.R. 643
RAMESH CHANDRA VAISHYA
v.
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1617 of 2023)
MAY 19, 2023
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND DIPANKAR DATTA, JJ.]
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 – ss. 3(1)(x), 18 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 323,
325, 392, 452, 504, 506 – Prosecution case that the appellant was
engaged in an altercation with the second respondent-complainant
over the issue of drainage of water – It was alleged that during this
altercation, the appellant verbally hurled caste related abuses
towards the complainant and his family members, and subsequently
physically assaulted the complainant causing him multiple injuries
– Two FIRs were filed – First FIR by the complainant against the
appellant and second FIR by appellant against the complainant –
First FIR was registered against the appellant u/ss. 323, 504, IPC
and 3(1)(x), the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Charge-sheet filed – Appellant
sought quashing of criminal proceedings u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. before
the High Court – High Court held that without evidence, it was not
possible to ascertain the veracity of the allegations, therefore
application u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. was not sustained – On appeal, held:
Neither the first F.I.R. nor the charge-sheet refers to the presence of
a fifth individual (a member of the public) at the place of occurrence
(apart from the appellant, the complainant, his wife and their son)
– Since the utterances, if any, made by the appellant were not “in
any place within public view”, the basic ingredient for attracting
section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act was missing/absent – Further, the
allegation in the first F.I.R. is that the appellant had beaten up the
complainant for which he sustained multiple injuries – Chargesheet
neither refer to any eye-witnesses other than complainant’s wife
and son nor any medical report – The nature of hurt suffered by the
complainant in the process is neither reflected from the first F.I.R.
nor the charge-sheet – On the contrary, the appellant had the injuries
suffered by him treated immediately after the incident – High Court
misdirected itself in failing to appreciate the challenge to the criminal
643
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
644
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 6 S.C.R.
proceedings including the charge-sheet in the proper perspective
and occasioned a grave failure of justice in rejecting such challenge.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The first F.I.R., registered at the instance of the
complainant, is silent about the place of occurrence and who,
being a member of the public, was present when the appellant is
alleged to have hurled caste related abuses at the complainant.
However, on a reading of the second F.I.R. registered at the
behest of the appellant, it appears that the incident took place at
the house of the appellant. The first question that calls for an
answer is whether it was at a place within public view that the
appellant hurled caste related abuses at the complainant with an
intent to insult or intimidate with an intent to humiliate him. From
the charge-sheet dated 21 st January, 2016 filed by the I.O., it
appears that the prosecution would seek to rely on the evidence
of three witnesses to drive home the charge against the appellant
of committing offences under sections 323 and 504, IPC and
3(1)(x), SC/ST Act. These three witnesses are none other than
the complainant, his wife and their son. Neither the first F.I.R.
nor the charge-sheet refers to the presence of a fifth individual
(a member of the public) at the place of occurrence (apart from
the appellant, the complainant, his wife and their son). Since the
utterances, if any, made by the appellant were not “in any place
within public view”, the basic ingredient for attracting section
3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act was missing/absent. This Court,
therefore, hold that at the relevant point of time of the incident
(of hurling of caste related abuse at the complainant by the
appellant), no member of the public was present. [Paras 16,
17][651-C-G]
2. That apart, assuming arguendo that the appellant had
hurled caste related abuses at the complainant with a view to
insult or humiliate him, the same does not advance the case of
the complainant any further to bring it within the ambit of section
3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act. It was noted from the first F.I.R. as well
as the charge-sheet that the same makes no reference to the
utterances o

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.