The Kerala High Court has reiterated that for an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the alleged act of insult or humiliation must take place in a location within public view.

Justice G. Girish, presiding as a single-judge bench, observed: "For the applicability of Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST POA Act, as it stood before the 2015 amendment, it must be established that the insult or intimidation was intended to cause humiliation to a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and occurred at a place within public view. In the present case, as the incident admittedly took place in the dining room of the petitioner’s house, it cannot be said to have occurred in a location within public view."

The case stemmed from an incident reported in 2010, where police charged 15 individuals under multiple provisions of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act. The complainant, Kamala, later filed a private complaint, alleging the omission of two accused from the police chargesheet.

Both proceedings were combined and tried by the Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Act. The Special Court acquitted all accused except two who were absconding. Dissatisfied, the complainant filed a criminal revision petition challenging the acquittal, alleging procedural errors and misinterpretation of the “public view” requirement under the SC/ST Act.

The High Court upheld the Special Court’s judgment, emphasizing that a location within "public view" implies a physical space accessible to or observable by the public. A private home, especially a dining room, does not satisfy this criterion as it is restricted to family members or invited individuals.

On the complainant’s objection to the joint trial, the Court ruled that conducting a common trial did not vitiate the proceedings or result in any miscarriage of justice. It noted:
"The mere fact that the Special Judge pronounced a common judgment in these cases cannot by itself render the proceedings invalid. The petitioner’s challenge in this regard is devoid of merit."

The Court identified inconsistencies in the testimony of the complainant and prosecution witnesses. Additionally, it observed that the complainant’s husband had been arrested a week before the complaint was lodged, allegedly in connection with a murder attempt involving one of the accused. The petitioner also suspected the accused of implicating her husband in abkari (illicit liquor) cases, suggesting an ulterior motive behind the complaint.

The High Court described the evidence presented by the complainant as “shabby and unreliable” and found no reason to interfere with the acquittal.

Case Title: Kamala E.P v. Ummer and Others

Appearance:

• For the Petitioner: Advocates Roy Chacko and P.S. George
• For the State: Public Prosecutor Sangeetharaj N.R
• For Respondents: Advocates Jency Michael, Sojan Michael, V.S. Boban, Chacko Simon, Antony Robert Dias, and Sivasankar