SC/ST Act: Offenses must occur within "public view" and electronic evidence requires scientific authentication.

The Appellant, a government employee (Assistant Grade-III), was accused of circulating an audio recording via WhatsApp on 17.07.2025

The complainant, a local political office bearer, alleged that the audio contained obscene and caste-based slurs directed at a State Minister and a female MLA belonging to a Scheduled Tribe, thereby causing public resentment

The police registered an FIR and submitted a charge sheet based on the audio clip and a certificate under Section 63(4)(c) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023

The Appellant challenged the trial court’s order dated 10.10.2025, which framed charges under Section 296 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and Section 3(1)(h) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

Section 2(ec) of the SC/ST Act, defining a "victim" as anyone who suffers harm due to an offense under the Act

Section 296 of the BNS regarding obscene acts or words in public

Section 3(1)(h) of the SC/ST Act regarding casteist abuse in any place "within public view"

The court relied on the "Hicklin Test" for obscenity as adopted in N.S. Madhanagopal v. K. Lalitha (2022), which requires a tendency to deprave or corrupt minds

The court further applied principles from Karuppudayar v. State (2025), which distinguishes a "public place" from a "place within public view," the latter requiring the presence of independent members of the public at the time of the incident

The court held that while the complainant could be considered a "victim" if the community felt aggrieved

Regarding the SC/ST Act and BNS charges, the court noted that the prosecution failed to identify a specific "public place" or "place within public view" where the words were uttered; no spot map (Nazri Naksha) was prepared, and the charges themselves lacked a specific location

Furthermore, the court observed critical investigative lapses: the Appellant’s mobile phone was not seized, no voice sampling or scientific comparison was conducted to prove the audio was his, and no transcript of the specific slurs used was available in the record

The court distinguished the Kerala High Court’s ruling in Sooraj V. Sukumar, noting that in the present case, unlike a televised interview, there was no clear evidence of where or how the digital content reached the public to satisfy the "public view" requirement

The court concluded that continuing the trial would be an abuse of the judicial process due to the lack of prima facie evidence

Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the trial court's order dated 10.10.2025 framing charges was set aside, and the Appellant was discharged from all offenses under Section 296 BNS and Section 3(1)(h) of the SC/ST Act