Absence of Public View Within Enclosed Private Premises Negates Offence Under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act

The Appellant was convicted by the Trial Court under Sections 323, 341, 504, 506 of the IPC and Section 3(i)(x) of the SC/ST Act

The prosecution alleged that on 19.01.2013, the Appellant entered the informant's tea shop (gumti) at night, assaulted her, used caste-based slurs ("Dusadhin"), and attempted to drag her away

During the trial, the informant introduced new allegations of disrobing, and testimony regarding the place of occurrence shifted from the shop to a private room

1. Whether the alleged caste-based insults occurred in a "place within public view" as required to sustain a conviction under Section 3(i)(x) of the SC/ST Act.

2. Whether the material contradictions and improvements in the testimony of prosecution witnesses render the conviction under the IPC unsustainable.

The court applied Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 341 (wrongful restraint), 504 (intentional insult), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC, alongside Section 3(i)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act

It relied on the precedent set in Swaran Singh & Ors. v. State (2008) 8 SCC 435 and Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand (2020) 10 SCC 710, which distinguish between a "public place" and a "place within public view"

The rule dictates that even if an offence occurs in a private place (like a house or shop), it must be visible/audible to members of the public (excluding relatives/friends) to attract the provisions of the SC/ST Act

The Court found that the alleged abuse took place within the four walls of a closed shop or a private room, which does not constitute "public view" under the SC/ST Act

Regarding the IPC charges, the Court noted significant "material improvements" and "contradictions"

Specifically, PW-1 (informant) introduced a new story of disrobing not mentioned in the FIR, and PW-3 admitted he arrived 10-15 minutes after the incident, making his eyewitness testimony doubtful

The medical evidence (PW-2) did not corroborate the assault, suggesting injuries were minor and possibly due to a fall

The failure to examine independent witnesses despite the location being near court premises further weakened the prosecution's case

Due to the inconsistent and uncorroborated nature of the evidence, the Court granted the Appellant the "benefit of doubt"

The appeal was allowed; the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.12.2015 were set aside, and the Appellant was acquitted of all charges