Hazardous to hold that mere reference to caste wouldn't be an offence under SC/ST Act: Bombay High Court

It would be precarious to hold that mere reference to the caste of a person wouldn't be an offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act of 1989 (SC/ST Act), the Bombay High Court said on Tuesday [Ramrao Rathod vs State of Maharashtra]..Single-judge Justice NJ Jamadar said that use of the words with reference to the caste of the victim, is required to be considered in the entire setting and context of the matter."It would be hazardous to lay down a broad proposition of law that mere reference to the caste or tribe of the victim, does not fall within the dragnet of the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act," the Court said. The Court was hearing an anticipatory bail plea filed by one Ramrao Rathod, who was booked in a criminal case under charges of Section 3(r) and (s) of the SC/ST act. .According to the prosecution, the victim in the case was looking for a tele-caller's job and was interviewed by Rathod. He, however, didn't select her but made advances to her, though she did not reciprocate. Later, the victim then got a receptionist's job at another office.On the day of the incident, the accused barged into the office of the victim's boss. There, she asked her to make entry in the visitor's book, and insulted her by referring to her caste.“Tuzi layaki kay ahe, tu chambhar kuthali, tula me jawal karnyacha praytna kela tar tula maj ala." (What is your worth, you Chambhar. I tried to get close to you and that has made you arrogant)The accused through his counsel Aniket Nikam argued that the First Information Report (FIR) did not mention his client's caste.It was contended it is incumbent on the prosecution to demonstrate that the appellant does not belong to SC or ST community. In the absence of such positive assertion in the FIR, the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) cannot be said to have been prima facie made out.The Court, however, rejected this argument. "Undoubtedly, a person who is a member of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe cannot be prosecuted for commission of atrocities on the other members of SC ST. The prosecution is enjoined to establish that the perpetrator of the alleged offence under Section 3 of the SC and ST Act is not a member of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. However, this burden on the prosecution does not necessarily support a proposition that the fact that the accused does not belong to SC/ST must be mentioned in the FIR and failure to do so entails the consequence of drawing an inference that no prima facie offence is made out, or for that matter, quashing the prosecution. At multiple stages in the course of prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the SC/ ST Act, the said question can be agitated, addressed and determined," the Court held.Nikam's next argument was that mere reference to the caste of the prosecutrix in the allegations attributed to the accused would not be sufficient to bring the conduct of the accused within the dragnet of Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC and ST Act.In the orders, the judge further noted from the FIR, that the victim and three other witnesses in the case have consistently stated that the Rathod humiliated her by uttering words with reference to her caste.The Court rejected the same too holding that laying down such a broad proposition would be hazardous. "In this view of the matter, it would be difficult, at this stage, to draw an inference that the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC and ST Act are not prima facie made out. The appeal stands dismissed," the Court ruled. .Advocate Aniket Nikam appeared for the accused, while additional public prosecutor A R Patil represented the state. The victim was represented by appointed advocate Savita Yadav..[Read Judgment]