C RAMESH SAGAR Vs. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is accused of offences punishable under Sections 290, 323 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short, the Act). The 2nd respondent gave report to the police on the basis of which the police issued F.I.R in this case against the petitioner. It is alleged that on 30.03.2012 at about 8.00 A.M in the temporary absence of her husband in the house, the accused who is residing at some distance from her house came to a vacant site near her house and called her as Erukula bitch and questioned her as to why she reported to her master about the accused being responsible for burning of motor because of washing of clothes by him. It is further alleged that the accused abused her and women belonging to her caste as Erukula bitches and also abused them in most filthy language and that when one Manemma intervened and questioned the accused as to why he was abusing all of them in the name of their caste, the accused came upon her and the 2nd respondent for beating her and that wife of the accused also came along with the accused and beat the 2nd respondent with hands.

(2.) IT is contended by the petitioner's counsel that necessary ingredients under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act are not attracted in this case as the place of offence is not a public place and that there were no other public who witnessed the offence as per allegations in F.I.R. He placed reliance on Mahesh Sakharam V. State of Maharashtra1 of the Bombay High Court in support of his contention. The Bombay High Court held therein that 'public' referred in Section 3(1)(x) of the Act do not include family members and residential attender of the complainant and that the said term includes members of the public already in the locality as residents as well as visitors from outside and that presence of such public is essential to attract the said offence.

(3.) IN the case on hand, apart from the 2nd respondent some others like Chilumardi Manemma belonging to the same scheduled caste was present and witnessed the alleged utterances of the petitioner and she also intervened and questioned the petitioner about his alleged irresponsibility and provocative utterances. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that there are sufficient allegations in F.I.R to attract the ingredients of the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. By description of the petitioner's name and his father's name, it is evident that he does not belong to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe as he is a muslim by religion. Intention of the petitioner is a matter which has to be gathered from the surrounding circumstances together with the utterances said to have been made by the accused in a place within public view. Therefore, I do not find any valid reasons to quash F.I.R in this case.