For SC/ST Atrocities Act to use, hurling of abuse must be in public place: Karnataka HC

By PTI

BENGALURU: The High Court of Karnataka has stated that for offences below the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the hurling of casteist abuse should be in a public place.

It quashed a case pending towards an individual because it discovered that the alleged abuse was made in a basement of a constructing, the place the sufferer and his co-workers alone had been current.

In the alleged incident which occurred in 2020, Rithesh Pias subjected Mohan to casteist abuse on the basement of a constructing the place he was working with the others.

All the employees had been employed by the constructing proprietor Jayakumar R Nair.

Justice M Nagaprasanna, in his verdict on June 10, famous: “Two components will emerge from a studying of the aforesaid statements- one being, the basement of the constructing was not a spot of public view and two, solely individuals who declare to be current had been the complainants and different workers of Jayakumar R. Nair or pals of the complainants.

“Hurling of abuses is clearly not in a place of public view or a public place for the Act to be get attracted in the case at hand,” the courtroom stated.

Further, the courtroom famous that there have been different components within the case.

The accused Rithesh Pias had a dispute with the constructing proprietor Jayakumar R Nair and had obtained a keep towards the development of the constructing.

The courtroom concluded that Nair was firing at Pias on the “shoulder of his employee (Johan).”

The courtroom stated the difficulty of the dispute between the 2 “cannot be brushed aside as it demonstrates a clear link in the chain of events. Therefore, the registration of crime itself suffers from want of bona fides.”

In the Sessions Court in Mangaluru the place the case was pending, aside from the Atrocities Act, Pias was additionally charged below Section 323 (Voluntarily Causing Hurt) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The High Court dismissed the fees additionally by saying, “For an offence punishable below Section 323 IPC there must be damage brought about within the squabble.

However on this case, Mohan’s “wound certificate shows a simple scratch mark on the fore-arm and another scratch mark on the chest. Bleeding is not what is indicated. Therefore, simple scratch marks cannot become offence under Section 323 of the IPC,” the judgement stated.

Quashing the case pending earlier than the decrease courtroom, the High Court stated, “In the light of the afore-quoted facts, when the basic ingredients of the offence are missing, then permitting such proceedings to continue and to compel the petitioner to face the rigmarole of criminal trial will be totally unjustified, leading to abuse of the process of law.”