Key Observations by the Supreme Court
A bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih ruled that for an offense to be established under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, the accused must have intentionally insulted or intimidated a person belonging to the SC/ST community in a public place, in the presence of others.
Case Dismissed Due to Lack of Public Insult
In the case under review, the alleged incident took place within private premises, and the FIR stated that the complainant’s associates arrived only after the alleged offense occurred. The court emphasized that the act must be committed in a public place, where others can witness it, for it to be considered an offense under this section.
Reaffirming Legal Precedents
While dismissing the case, the Supreme Court reiterated that under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Atrocities Act, an offense is only established if the accused used caste-based slurs in a public setting. Since this essential criterion was not met, the court ruled that the case did not qualify under the Act, leading to its quashing.
This verdict sets a clear legal precedent for similar cases, reinforcing the necessity of public insult as a key component for prosecuting offenses under the Atrocities Act.
