BHARATI HARIBHAU PISAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR .Kadam, after taking instructions does not press this application insofar as applicant Nos. 1 and 3 but prays time till 16th October 2006 to surrender. At the request of Mr.Kadam, time is granted to applicant Nos.1 (Bharti Haribau Pisal) and 3 (Changdeo Haribhai Pisal) to surrender before I.O. till 16th October 2006. Ad-interim order granted by this Court to continue till then.

(2.) AS far as applicant No.4 is concerned, it is pointed out by Mr.Kadam that she is wife of applicant No.2 and considering the role attributed to her in the incident of 15th August 2006 is that, she along with applicant No.2 has abused complainant and threatened so also she being a woman accused, a sympathetic view may be taken. As far as applicant No.s 2, 5 and 6 are concerned, Mr.Kadam submits that they are not guilty even, prima facie, of the offences alleged under the Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989. He has invited my attention to the statement of Kamal, original complainant who is neighbour of the applicants and has contended that applicant No.6, a minor has also been named in the incident. However, it is the applicant No.1 who is supposed to have uttered the words mentioned in the complaint which, prima facie, constitute an offence under the Atrocities Act. However, even that is doubtful, because, considering the law laid down by this Court in Sudamati w/o.Nandkumar Kade Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2006 All.MR (Cri) 1379 and in the case of Manohar s/o.Martandrao Kulkarni & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in 2005 ALL MR (Cri) 2602. The principle, according to Mr.Kadam, is absolutely clear. A Full Bench of Rajasthan High Court (Virendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2000 ALL M.R. (Cri) Journal 196) has also construed the provision to mean, not an absolute bar but permitting the Court to examine the accusations.

(3.) I have gone through the statement of complainant Kamal in the light of the law laid down by this Court and only with a view to satisfy myself as to whether Section 18 can be attracted qua each of the applicant accused, before me. Having read the statement in its entirety the utterances are allegedly made by applicant No.1 Bharati. As far as applicant No.2 - Sukhdev and applicant No.5 and 6 are concerned, it is prima facie clear from their utterances that same constitute an offence under the Atrocities Act, 1989. The offence alleged is under section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act. That is intentionally insulting or intimidating with intent to humiliate a member of a scheduled caste or scheduled tribe in any place within public view. Thus, if the offence is alleged to have been committed by a person not being member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, he must be prima facie shown to have intentionally insulted or intimidated with an intent to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view.