SANJITH E. P. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants are the accused in Crime No.496 of 2023 of Mulavukadu Police Station, registered for offences punishable under Ss. 448,294(b),506,341,323,324, read with Sec. 34 of IPC and Ss. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. The crime was registered pursuant to a complaint by the third respondent that on 9/4/2023, at about 7 p.m. the accused trespassed into the residence of the third respondent, damaged the doors and windows and pushed the third respondent to the floor. Hearing the hue and cry, the third respondent's children rushed to her rescue. Thereupon, they were assaulted with irons rod and oars and abused by caste. Although appellants approached the Sessions Court seeking anticipatory bail, the prayer was rejected by a cryptic order, referring to the prohibition under Sec. 18 of the SC & ST (POA) Act. Hence, these appeals.

(2.) Heard Adv.C.C.Anoop for the appellants and Public Prosecutor M.C.Ashi for the State. Despite service of notice through the investigating officer, the third respondent is neither present nor represented.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellants contended that a false complaint was lodged by the third respondent, as a counter blast to the crime (Crime No.495/2023) registered against the third respondent's children and others based on the appellants' complaint. It is submitted that the third respondent's children, along with others, had brutally assaulted the appellants resulting in grievous injuries and hospitalisation. The incident resulted in Crime No. 495/2023 being registered at the Mulavukadu Police Station against the assailants for offences punishable under Ss. 341, 294(b) , 506, 323, 324 read with Sec. 34 of IPC. On coming to know about the registration of the above crime, the third respondent approached the police raising false allegations, so as to save her children. It is contended that even going by the allegations in the First Information Statement of the third respondent, no offence under the SC and ST ( POA) Act is made out. In elaboration of this contention, it is submitted that the vague allegation of the appellants having addressed the third respondent's children by their caste name is not sufficient to attract the offences under Ss. 3(1)(r) and 3 (1)(s) of the Act. The offences are not attracted even otherwise, as the allegation that the appellants had insulted and intimidated the third respondent's children inside the house. Here, the contention is that the offences will be attracted only if the abuse, insult or intimidation is done within public view. The further contention is that, since the third respondent belong to the Dheevera community and her husband to the scheduled caste, the children does not belong to the scheduled caste, without which offences under the Act will not be attracted.