C.M.KUSUMAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.125 of 2022 registered at the Velloor Police Station for the offence under Sec. 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ('the Act' for short) now pending as S.C.No.695 of 2022 on the files of the Sessions Court Kottayam. The case originated from a complaint filed against the petitioner by the 3rd respondent. The petitioner is the Principal of the D.B College, Keezhoor, whereas the 3rd respondent is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Journalism at that college. Briefly put, the allegations in the complaint are as follows ;

(2.) Heard, Senior Advocate Abraham Vakkanal for the petitioner, Adv.Thomas J Anakkallunkal for the 3rd respondent and Senior Public Prosecutor M.K.Pushpalatha for the State.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel contended that in order to attract the offence under Sec. 3(1)(r) of the Act, the victim should have been humiliated with reference to his Scheduled Caste status. In the absence of such intention the offence under Sec. 3(1)(r) will not be attracted even if the victim belongs to the Scheduled Caste or the Scheduled Tribe and felt insulted by the derogatory comment. To buttress the argument, reliance is placed on the decisions in Hitesh Verma v State of Uttarakhand and Another [(2020) 10 SCC 710], Ramesh Chandra Vaishya v State of Uttar Pradesh and Another [2023 SCC OnLine SC 668] and Shajan Skaria v State of Kerala and Another [2024 SCC OnLine SC 2249]. According to the Senior Counsel, the comment that the 3rd respondent had manufacturing defect has nothing to do with his caste. Further, for attracting the offence under Sec. 3(1)(r), the remark should have been made in a public place and within public view. Here, the remark was made inside a hall within the college campus where only a closed group of staff members were present. To bolster the argument, reference is made to the decision of the High Court of Karnataka in Rithesh Pais v State of Karnataka, by Puttur Town P.S. and Another [2022 SCC OnLine Kar 1676] and that of the Delhi High Court in Daya Bhatnagar and Others v State [(2004) 109 DLT 915].