<p> The Supreme Court on Thursday declared that an offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not established merely on the fact that the complainant is a member of Scheduled Caste. </p>.<p>The court said that it has to be proved that there is an intention to humiliate such a member for the reason that the victim belongs to such caste.</p>.<p>"All insults or intimidations to a person will not be an offence under the Act unless such insult or intimidation is on account of victim belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe," a three-judge bench presided over by Justice L Nageswara Rao said.</p>.<p>The bench, also comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and Ajay Rastogi, pointed out the object of the law is to improve the socio-economic conditions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes as they are denied a number of civil rights. </p>.<p>"Thus, an offence under the Act would be made out when a member of the vulnerable section of the society is subjected to indignities, humiliations and harassment," Justice Gupta said in a judgement authored by him on behalf of the bench.</p>.<p>The court also pointed out another key ingredient of the provision under Section 3(1)(r) is insult or intimidation has to be in “any place within public view”.</p>.<p>The top court passed its judgement, quashing the charge sheet to the extent of offence under the special law against petitioner Hemant Verma and others.</p>.<p>"In the present case, the parties are litigating over possession of the land. The allegation of hurling of abuses is against a person who claims title over the property. If such a person happens to be a Scheduled Caste, the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act is not made out," the court said.</p>.<p>It also pointed out the offence was alleged to have taken place within the four walls of the building, which can't be said to be in public view.</p>.<p>The court further said that the assertion of title over the land by either of the parties was not due to either the indignities, humiliations or harassment. </p>.<p>"Every citizen has a right to avail their remedies in accordance with the law. Therefore, if the appellant or his family members have invoked the jurisdiction of the civil court, or that they have invoked the jurisdiction of the civil court, then the parties are availing their remedies in accordance with the procedure established by law. Such action is not for the reason that the complainant is member of Scheduled Caste," the court said.</p>.<p>It said the object of the Act is to punish the violators who inflict indignities, humiliations and harassment and commit the offence as defined under Section 3 of the Act. The Act is thus intended to punish the acts of the upper caste against the vulnerable section of the society for the reason that they belong to a particular community.</p>
<p> The Supreme Court on Thursday declared that an offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not established merely on the fact that the complainant is a member of Scheduled Caste. </p>.<p>The court said that it has to be proved that there is an intention to humiliate such a member for the reason that the victim belongs to such caste.</p>.<p>"All insults or intimidations to a person will not be an offence under the Act unless such insult or intimidation is on account of victim belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe," a three-judge bench presided over by Justice L Nageswara Rao said.</p>.<p>The bench, also comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and Ajay Rastogi, pointed out the object of the law is to improve the socio-economic conditions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes as they are denied a number of civil rights. </p>.<p>"Thus, an offence under the Act would be made out when a member of the vulnerable section of the society is subjected to indignities, humiliations and harassment," Justice Gupta said in a judgement authored by him on behalf of the bench.</p>.<p>The court also pointed out another key ingredient of the provision under Section 3(1)(r) is insult or intimidation has to be in “any place within public view”.</p>.<p>The top court passed its judgement, quashing the charge sheet to the extent of offence under the special law against petitioner Hemant Verma and others.</p>.<p>"In the present case, the parties are litigating over possession of the land. The allegation of hurling of abuses is against a person who claims title over the property. If such a person happens to be a Scheduled Caste, the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act is not made out," the court said.</p>.<p>It also pointed out the offence was alleged to have taken place within the four walls of the building, which can't be said to be in public view.</p>.<p>The court further said that the assertion of title over the land by either of the parties was not due to either the indignities, humiliations or harassment. </p>.<p>"Every citizen has a right to avail their remedies in accordance with the law. Therefore, if the appellant or his family members have invoked the jurisdiction of the civil court, or that they have invoked the jurisdiction of the civil court, then the parties are availing their remedies in accordance with the procedure established by law. Such action is not for the reason that the complainant is member of Scheduled Caste," the court said.</p>.<p>It said the object of the Act is to punish the violators who inflict indignities, humiliations and harassment and commit the offence as defined under Section 3 of the Act. The Act is thus intended to punish the acts of the upper caste against the vulnerable section of the society for the reason that they belong to a particular community.</p>
