Prithviraj K. Chavan JUDGMENT
Prithviraj K. Chavan, J.
1. Heard.
2. Admit.
3. Mr. S. Redkar, learned Counsel waives notice on behalf of the respondents.
4. By this revision, under Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner/State of Goa through Police Station Colva, has challenged the legality, propriety, and correctness of the impugned order of discharge dated 1.3.2017 passed by the Special Judge Margao, Goa, discharging the petitioner of the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "the Act") and Sections 504 and 506(ii) read with Section 34 of IPC.
5. Relevant facts required for disposal of this petition can be stated as follows:-
"On 19.2.2015 at about 06.45 hours the respondents/accused in front of house No. 223/2, Calwaddo, Varca Salcette Goa with their common intention abused the complainant Manic Jatav in filthy language and also on his caste by calling him as "ghanti, bhongi, chamar and mhar" in a public view and thereby intentionally insulted and humiliated the complainant who belongs to "Jatav Caste" which is recognized as the Scheduled caste. The respondents/accused had also threatened the complainant, with dire consequences by stating that they would break his leg. Accordingly, an offence came to be registered against the respondents under Sections 504 and 506(ii) read with 34 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. After investigation a chargesheet has been field before JMFC at Margao and the case has been committed to the Special Court. After hearing the arguments before charge, the learned Special Judge by the impugned order discharged the respondents/accused and therefore, the State has filed the present revision application."
6. I have heard Shri S. Rivankar, learned Public Prosecutor for the appellant and Shri S. Redkar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.
7. Shri Rivankar, learned Public Prosecutor took me through the records especially the complaint lodged by Manic Jatav on 31.3.2015 coupled with caste certificate issued by the Competent Authority i.e. Sub Divisional Officer, District Murena, Madhya Pradesh indicating that the complainant belongs to "Jatav caste" which is a scheduled caste. The complaint reveals that on 19.2.2015 in the morning when the complainant was going to market to buy bread and milk for his children and was about to cross the house of the respondent No. 1 Metzi Cardoz, came out from her house and started abusing in filthy language in Konkani and further insulted the complainant by saying "ghanti, bhongi, chamar and mhar". The complainant also alleged that respondent No. 1 had been abusing him in similar way on so many times. She also threatened him with dire consequences by stating that she will break his leg. The complaint reveals that the complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste as it is evident from the Caste Certificate annexed to the complaint dated 1.5.2014. Even the learned Counsel for the respondents has not disputed the Caste Certificate issued by the Competent Authority, which is a public document.
8. Statement of the complainant finds support from the statement of Filastro Cardozo who is a teacher by profession and had kept complainant Manic Jatav as a care taker of his house since last two years. His statement reveals that on 19.2.2015 at about 6.45 hours he came out of the house after hearing commotion only to notice that Metzi Cardozo abusing the complainant Manic Jatav by uttering words like "ghanti, mahar, chamar and bhongi". Section 2(1)(c) of the Act, provides "Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes" shall have meanings assigned to them respectively under Clauses (24) and (25) of Article 366 of the Constitution.
9. Statement of the complainant as well as Filastro Cardozo also finds support from the statement of Anil Jatav aged 14 year son of complainant and his wife Ramlata Jatav. There is one more independent witness namely Prakash Dolavar who also appears to have stated in his statement before SDPO that on 19.2.2015 he was present in the house of the complainant when he noticed a lady whose name revealed to him as Mitzi Cardozo abused and insulted the complainant by saying "ghanti, bhongi chamar and mhar" and also threatened him of dire consequences.
10. Section 3(1)(x) of the Act contemplates that there shall be intentional insults or intimidation with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view.
11. Prima facie, it is apparent from the recitals of the complaint and the statement of the witnesses that the complainant was abused within a public view by the respondent No. 1 Metzi Cardozo who does not belongs to Scheduled Caste. Ingredients of Section 3(1) (x) has been precisely attracted. It is also clear from the record that the respondents knew that the complainant is a member of the scheduled caste or scheduled tribes as from the record it appears that they are of "Jatav" caste.
12. Arguments of the learned Counsel for the respondents that there was no reason for the respondents to know the caste of the complainant does not stand to reason for, had they not been aware of the caste of the complainant, they would not have insulted and abused him by saying "ghanti, bhongi chamar and mhar" which indeed denote that the respondents intentionally insulted the complainant with full knowledge that he is a member of Scheduled caste, otherwise the respondents would not have uttered the words as stated in the complaint. It is not requirement of law that the remarks on caste or the words uttered to that effect occurred in the "public view" in the sense that word "public view" is required to be incorporated in the complaint as it can be gathered from surrounding circumstances and from the tenor of the language. It is well settled principle of law that it would be essential to see as to whether prima facie ingredients of Section 3(1) (x) of the Act are attracted. At the stage of framing charge what is required to be seen is that whether there is sufficient material on record in the form of evidence which is such if not rebutted would warrant conviction of the accused. At the stage of framing charge, evidence cannot be gone into meticulously which has been precisely done by the learned Special Judge in the impugned order. All what is required at the stage of framing charge is whether prima facie case is made out and it is not necessary to go into merits of the case. It is equally important to note that it is not necessary to give reasons while framing the charge. It is immaterial whether a case is based on direct or circumstantial evidence. Only because there is delay in lodging the complaint would not ipso facto mean that the complaint is altogether false especially for the reason that the complainant and his wife has specifically clarified in complaint that they have been insulted and humiliated by the respondents in the past. The learned Special Judge though placed reliance on a few case laws of the Supreme Court viz the case of State of A.P. v. Goloconda Lingaswamy, (MANU/SC/0552/2004 : AIR 2004 SC 3967), erred in appreciating the ratio laid down therein. The learned Special Judge erred in correctly appreciating the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in case of State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, (MANU/SC/0139/1977 : AIR 1977 SC 2018) and in the case of Dilawar Balu Kurane v. State of Maharashtra, in case No. Appeal (Crl.) 8 of 2002). The Special Judge has committed gross error in observing in para 28 of the impugned order that there is no material to show that the respondent No. 1 was aware of the fact that the complainant belongs to scheduled caste. This aspect can only be ascertained during the trial on merits and not at the stage of framing the charge and even otherwise, as already stated herein above that unless the respondents knew the caste of the complainant she would not have abused him uttering the words as stated herein above. It is not necessary that offender first see the certificate of the complainant and then only he would abuse him on his caste which is precisely appears to be the reasons assigned by the learned Special Judge in paragraphs 30 and 32 of the impugned order.
13. Complaint also indicates that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were also with the respondent No. 1 at the time of incident, who too had insulted the complainant by saying "Ghanti, bhongi chamar and mhar". It seems that there is no sufficient material in so far as respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned as regards insulting the complainant on the ground of his caste except saying the words "Ghanti" in the complaint. There is nothing on record to show that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 extended threats to the complainant. Thus the impugned order discharging the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 needs to be confirmed.
14. The learned Counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on an authority of this High Court in the case of Sarita Shyam Dake v. Sr. Police Inspector, reported in MANU/MH/1386/2007 : 2008 ALL MR(Cri) 1477. In the said case, there was no material in the complaint to show that the complainant belonged to the Scheduled Caste which is not the case at hand. Rather, the complaint itself indicates that the complainant belongs to the Scheduled caste which is buttress with the Caste Certificate.
15. Thus, record undisputedly disclose the fact that the complainant was insulted on his caste within a public view by the respondent No. 1 by calling him "Ghanti, bhongi chamar and mhar" any by threatening him with dire consequences. There is every material to infer that there was provocation given to the complainant with an intention that it would provoke him to break the public peace or commit any other offence. The impugned order is incorrect and needs to be quashed and set aside to that extent.
16. In the light of the observations made herein above, petition is partly allowed. The learned Sessions Judge, Margao is directed to frame a charge against the respondent No. 1. Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.