Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 891 (KER)

Johnson T. T. v. State of Kerala

2016-10-21

SUNIL THOMAS

body2016
ORDER Sunil Thomas, J. 1. This petition is filed by the sole accused in Crime No.326 of 2016 of Eloor Police Station for offences punishable under section 3(1)x of SC/ST (POA) Act and Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The allegation of the second respondent, who is the de facto complainant is that on 20.12.2016, the accused abused her by calling her caste name. Complaint was lodged by her and crime was registered. Investigation is progressing. Contending that even the admitted facts do not reveal the ingredients of any offence, much less an offence under section 3(1)X of SC/ST (POA) Act andsection 354 of IPC, accused has approached this Court to quash the proceedings. 3. Heard both sides and the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. Admittedly the accused is the landlord and the complainant and her husband are residing in a building let out by the accused. In yet another building in the same compound, landlord is residing with family. Adjoining building is also let out to another tenant. According to the de facto complainant, the accused and his wife were in the habit of picking up quarrel with tenants on trivial issues, to compel them to vacate the building without claiming the advance paid. Accused had on several occasions abused and harassed the complainant and her husband. 5. The learned counsel for the accused contended that one of the main ingredient of an offence under scheduled caste or tribe (POA) Act is that the de facto complainant should belong to SC/ST caste and the accused should belong to a non SC/ST. According to the counsel, this should be alleged in the complaint. In the present case, the FI statement of the de facto complainant does not state that the accused belong to a caste other than SC/ST. The Honourable Supreme Court in Gorige Pentalah v. State of Andhra Pradesh ( 2008(12) SCC 531 ) has held that in the absence of a specific allegation that the accused belong to a caste other than SC/ST, an offence under SC/ST (POA) Act is not sustainable. This was reiterated by the Kerala High Court in V.S.Sulochanan and Others v. State of Kerala (2012 KHC 2975). 6. Yet another contention was that the act should be done in public view. According to the counsel, even according to the complainant, the accused abused her on 20.12.2015, sitting inside her house. This was reiterated by the Kerala High Court in V.S.Sulochanan and Others v. State of Kerala (2012 KHC 2975). 6. Yet another contention was that the act should be done in public view. According to the counsel, even according to the complainant, the accused abused her on 20.12.2015, sitting inside her house. According to him, the incident happened inside the private compound of parties and not in public view. The subtle distinction involved was explained by the Court in E.Krishnan Nayanar v. M.A.Kuttappan Member Kerala Legislative Assembly ( 1997(1) KLT 512 ). The same view was followed by Bombay High Court in Suryakanta v. State of Maharashtra (2011 KHC 329) and in Mahesh v. State of Maharashtra (2009 CriLJ 3831). 7. Another contention of the learned counsel was that there was no allegation that accused had intentionally abused her by degrading her as a member of the SC community. The settled legal position is that in the absence of evidence that accused intentionally insulted or intimidated with intend to humiliate the complainant as a member of that caste, offence under Act is not attracted. This is reported in Ram Balachander v. State of MP (2012 KHC 2003), Asokan Nambiar v. State of Kerala ( 2005(1) KLT 12 and in Mohammad Kutty v. State of Kerala ( 2004(1) KLT 331 ). In Mohammed Kutty's case, it was held that a mere mention of caste of a person will not constitute the offence, unless there was an intention to humiliate or to insult. Definitely, intention is something which should be specifically alleged and can be gathered from the conduct of the parties or from attending circumstances. 8. The complaint does not contain any specific allegation that accused had such an intention. On the other hand, there are several circumstances to assume otherwise. Complainant has specifically alleged that accused was in the habit of harassing the tenants after 3-4 months of commencement of tenancy to ensure that they vacate without claiming the advance paid. She has alleged that accused used to adopt such methods against every tenant. She has referred to several such instances of harassment by landlord. Hence, those instances only indicate a friction between a landlord and tenant. She has alleged that accused used to adopt such methods against every tenant. She has referred to several such instances of harassment by landlord. Hence, those instances only indicate a friction between a landlord and tenant. Though he had called her by caste name, in the context in which it is used, it appears to be intended to address her and not to abuse her with reference to her caste. Her statement as a whole refers to various methods of harassment adopted by the landlord and not touching upon her status as a scheduled caste. Further, the very fact that accused had let out his own house to a member of scheduled caste, thereby acknowledged her caste status can also lead to a presumption that he had no real intention to abuse her by calling caste name. 9. In the light of above facts, a conviction on the basis of above materials is highly doubtful. Hence, I am inclined to allow the Crl.M.C Crl.M.C is allowed. All further proceedings arising from Crime No.326 of 2016 of Eloor Police Station stand quashed.