SC/ST Act conviction requires proof of intentional caste-based humiliation in public view; rent-receipt disputes are insufficient.

The complainant, Narayan Munda, a member of the Munda Scheduled Tribe, alleged that the appellant, a Halka Karamchari, demanded ₹1,000 for issuing revenue receipts in respect of land claimed by the complainant.

Upon the complainant’s inability to pay, the appellant allegedly refused to issue the receipts, threatened dispossession, and subsequently abused him by referring to his caste at Panchayat Bhawan on 13 September 1995.

The police submitted a final report in favour of the appellant, but the complainant’s protest petition was accepted and cognizance was taken.

After remand proceedings and framing of charges under Sections 3(1)(v) and 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the trial court convicted the appellant under Section 3(1)(x) and sentenced him to one year’s rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹500.

The appellant challenged the conviction, contending that the statutory ingredients were not established and that the prosecution arose from his official refusal to issue revenue receipts.

1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant intentionally insulted or intimidated the complainant, a member of a Scheduled Tribe, with intent to humiliate him in a place within public view, thereby committing an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989?

2. Whether the contradictions in the complainant’s account and the surrounding circumstances demonstrated that the prosecution was motivated by the appellant’s refusal to issue revenue receipts rather than by any caste-based humiliation?

The Court applied Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which criminalises intentional insult or intimidation of a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe with intent to humiliate that person in any place within public view.

The prosecution was therefore required to establish the statutory elements of intentional insult or intimidation, the requisite intent to humiliate on account of the victim’s caste or tribal status, the victim’s membership of the protected community, and the occurrence in a place within public view.

The Court also considered the general criminal-law requirement that guilt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Although the appellant raised the issue of sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the decision ultimately turned on the failure to establish the ingredients of Section 3(1)(x).

The Court found material inconsistencies between the complaint and the complainant’s deposition.

The complaint stated that the complainant had been accompanied by his father during the alleged incident, whereas in evidence he claimed to have been accompanied by Kamal Singh, Ratia Oraon, and Robot Oraon.

The witnesses also admitted that an altercation had taken place from both sides and that the incident had not been reported contemporaneously.

The Court held that the genesis of the dispute was the non-issuance of revenue receipts, not caste-based humiliation.

The appellant had acted as a Halka Karamchari in circumstances where the land settlement was allegedly erroneous and the superior authorities had directed that rent receipts should not be issued.

In that factual context, the Court concluded that the allegation of abuse did not reliably establish intentional insult or intimidation with the specific intent to humiliate the complainant as a member of a Scheduled Tribe in the manner required by Section 3(1)(x).

The trial court’s conviction and sentence were set aside, the appellant was acquitted, and the appeal was allowed.

As the appellant was on bail, he was discharged from the liability of his bail bond and the sureties were released.