In a noteworthy ruling, the Rajasthan High Court has dismissed charges under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, in the case of Achal Singh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., stating that terms such as “Bhangi” and “Neech,” as alleged by the prosecution, do not automatically signify caste-specific insults necessary for invoking the Act. The judgment, delivered by Justice Birendra Kumar on November 12, 2024, has underscored the importance of clear, caste-specific intent in cases involving alleged atrocities under the SC/ST Act.
Background of the Case
The case involves four appellants—Achal Singh, Madan Singh, Damodar Singh, and Surendra Singh—residents of Jaisalmer, who were accused of obstructing and verbally abusing public servants, including respondent Harish Chandra, an official from Pali district, during an anti-encroachment operation. On January 31, 2011, Chandra and his team visited land in Jaisalmer to identify encroachments reportedly made by the accused. During the operation, the appellants allegedly used terms like “Bhangi,” “Neech,” and “Bhikhari” toward the officials, which led to the registration of FIR No. 40/2011 under Sections 353 and 332/34 of the IPC, as well as Section 3(1)(X) of the SC/ST Act.
Initially, the police investigation yielded a negative report, finding the accusations unsubstantiated. However, following a protest petition by Chandra, a local court ordered charges to be framed, which led to this appeal.
Key Legal Issues Addressed
The High Court’s decision revolved around two central legal questions:
1. Whether the terms allegedly used by the accused specifically denoted caste-based abuse, meeting the requirements under Section 3(1)(X) of the SC/ST Act.
2. Whether there was sufficient cause to proceed with charges under Sections 353 and 332/34 of the IPC related to obstructing public servants in the discharge of their duties.
Court’s Observations and Decision
The appellants, represented by advocate Mr. Leela Dhar Khatri, contended that the alleged terms were generic insults and lacked any direct reference to the caste of the public servants involved. Khatri argued that for charges under the SC/ST Act to apply, there must be clear evidence showing the intent to humiliate specifically based on caste. He cited precedents, including the Supreme Court judgment in Ramesh Chandra Vaishya v. The State of Uttar Pradesh (2023), which emphasized that accusations under the Act require caste-specific abuse intended to humiliate.
Justice Birendra Kumar, in his decision, noted:
“The alleged expressions—’Bhangi,’ ‘Neech,’ and ‘Bhikhari’—are generic in nature and cannot be solely attributed to caste-based animosity without substantial proof of intent.”
The court further observed that merely offensive language, absent any caste-specific intent, does not fulfill the statutory requirements of the SC/ST Act. In particular, Justice Kumar highlighted the lack of independent witnesses beyond the informant’s party, a factor which weakened the case for caste-based abuse.
After reviewing the evidence and the precedents, the High Court discharged the accused from charges under Section 3(1)(X) of the SC/ST Act, ruling that the primary purpose of the terms was not to humiliate the officials based on caste but rather a protest against the encroachment operation.
However, the court upheld the continuation of the case under Sections 353 and 332/34 of the IPC, stating that there was sufficient prima facie evidence to proceed with charges related to obstruction of public duty.
