Supreme Court clarifies the scope of Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: Narad Patel vs. State of Chhattisgarh (10 May 2019)

Date of the Judgment: 10 May 2019
Citation: 2019 INSC 448
Judges: Arun Mishra, J. and Uday Umesh Lalit, J.
Can a person be convicted under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (the Act) if the abuses hurled do not explicitly refer to the caste or tribe of the complainant? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in the case of Narad Patel vs. State of Chhattisgarh. The Court clarified that while abuses may have been made, if there is no reference to the caste or tribe of the complainant, a conviction under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act cannot be sustained. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, with the opinion authored by Justice Uday Umesh Lalit.

Case Background

The case originated from an incident where the appellant, Narad Patel, allegedly cut the hedge of complainant Deshiram’s paddy field between the night of 30th September 2001 and 1st October 2001, causing Deshiram’s field to lose water. Following this, a Panchayat was convened on 1st October 2001. During this meeting, it was alleged that Narad Patel abused Deshiram and his brother, Shyam Sunder, and threatened to kill them. Deshiram and Shyam Sunder belonged to a Scheduled Tribe. Consequently, Narad Patel was charged under Sections 294 and 506-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Special Judge, Raigarh, found Narad Patel guilty of offences under Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. He was sentenced to three months rigorous imprisonment for the first count and six months for the second, along with fines and default sentences. However, he was acquitted of the charge under Section 506 of the IPC. The High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur upheld the Special Judge’s decision, dismissing Narad Patel’s appeal. This led to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case involves the following legal provisions:

• Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with obscene acts and songs. It states, “Whoever, to the annoyance of others (a) does any obscene act in any public place, or (b) sings, recites or utters any obscene song, ballad or words, in or near any public place, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine, or with both.”
• Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with punishment for criminal intimidation. It states, “Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.—And if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.”
• Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: This section deals with offences of atrocities against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It states, “Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine.”

Arguments

The appellant, Narad Patel, argued that the abuses he allegedly hurled did not specifically refer to the caste or tribe of the complainant, Deshiram. The appellant contended that without a direct reference to the complainant’s caste, a conviction under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, cannot be sustained.

The respondent, the State of Chhattisgarh, argued that the appellant had indeed abused the complainant and his brother, who were members of a Scheduled Tribe, and hence the conviction under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act was justified. The State relied on the testimonies of witnesses who claimed that the abuses were caste-based.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, was justified, given that the abuses hurled did not explicitly refer to the caste or tribe of the complainant.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any specific cases or books in this judgment. The judgment primarily focused on the interpretation of Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and its application to the facts of the case.

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the complainant’s own testimony, which did not indicate any reference to his caste or tribe during the alleged abuses. The Court emphasized that for a conviction under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the insult or intimidation must be specifically directed towards the victim’s caste or tribe. The Court’s reasoning was based on a strict interpretation of the legal provision and the facts presented by the complainant.

The Court’s decision was based on the following logical reasoning:

The Court considered the alternative interpretation that the abuse, even without direct reference to caste, was intended to humiliate the complainant due to his caste. However, the court rejected this interpretation because the complainant’s own testimony did not support this. The Court emphasized the need for a direct link between the abuse and the victim’s caste for a conviction under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act.

The Supreme Court’s decision was to affirm the conviction under Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), for the use of abusive language. However, the Court acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, because the abuses did not specifically refer to the caste or tribe of the complainant.

The key reasons for the decision were:

• The complainant’s version of the incident did not include any reference to his caste or tribe during the alleged abuses.
• Section 3(1)(x) of the Act requires that the insult or intimidation be specifically directed towards the victim’s caste or tribe.
• The Court gave the benefit of doubt to the appellant regarding the charge under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

• “Going by the version of the complainant Deshiram himself, the expressions used by the appellant during the course of vertical altercation, did not refer to the caste or tribe that the complainant belonged though such assertion finds place in the testimony of the other witnesses.”
• “Thus, the fact that the appellant abused the complainant Deshiram is quite clear and as such his conviction and sentence recorded under Section 294 IPC was fully justified.”
• “However, going by the version of the complainant Deshiram according to which there was no reference to the caste or tribe of the complainant, there is a doubt as regards charge under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act.”

There was no majority or minority opinion in this case. Both judges on the bench agreed with the final decision.

The Supreme Court’s interpretation of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act emphasizes the need for a direct link between the abuse and the victim’s caste or tribe. This interpretation has implications for future cases involving similar charges, highlighting the importance of specific evidence showing caste-based humiliation.

No new doctrines or legal principles were introduced in this judgment. The Court’s decision was based on a strict interpretation of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act and a careful consideration of the facts presented by the complainant.

Key Takeaways

• For a conviction under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the abuses must specifically refer to the caste or tribe of the complainant.
• The complainant’s own testimony plays a crucial role in determining whether the abuses were caste-based.
• General abuses, without a direct reference to caste, are not sufficient for a conviction under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act.

This judgment clarifies the scope of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act and emphasizes the need for specific evidence of caste-based humiliation in cases involving alleged atrocities against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellant be set at liberty unless his custody was required in connection with any other matter.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that for a conviction under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the abuses must specifically refer to the caste or tribe of the complainant. This clarifies the previous position of law by emphasizing the need for a direct link between the abuse and the victim’s caste for a conviction under this provision.

Conclusion

In the case of Narad Patel vs. State of Chhattisgarh, the Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, affirming the conviction under Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) while acquitting the appellant under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Court emphasized that for a conviction under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, the abuses must specifically refer to the caste or tribe of the complainant, and the complainant’s testimony plays a crucial role in determining the nature of the abuses.