JUDGMENT : A. HARIPRASAD, J. 1. Petitioner is the accused in Valiyathura Police Station CrimeNo.225 of 2016 registered under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, “IPC”) and Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short, “the Act”). The case is now pending as C.P.No.77 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. Prosecution case, in short, is that the petitioner/accused was functioning as an instructor in the Rajeev Gandhi Academy for Aviation Technology, Thiruvananthapuram. Defacto complainant was a trainee in the Academy. Petitioner used to harass him by calling caste name and on22.12.2015 between 1.15 and 2.15 p.m., he assaulted the defacto complainant from a training aircraft. In that process, the finger ring worn by the petitioner caused injury to the right eye of the defacto complainant. Thereby the petitioner is guilty of the offences mentioned above. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. Learned counsel submitted that going by the averments in the first information statement, no offence under the Act is made out. It is also contended that the finger ring worn by the petitioner cannot be treated as a dangerous weapon to constitute an offence under Section 324 IPC. In order to constitute an offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, it must be averred in the complaint that a person, who is not a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, intentionally insulted or intimidated a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community with an intent to humiliate him in any place within public view. The expression “public view” was considered by this Court in E.K. Nayanar v. Dr. M.A. Kuttappan (1997 (1) KLJ 280). The learned Single Judge held thus: “Sub-section (i) to (xii), (xiv) and (xv) are atrocities committed against an individual member of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes and sub-section (xiii) is an atrocity committed against the property like water of any spring, reservoir or any other source ordinarily used by members of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes so as to render it less fit for the purpose for which it is ordinarily used. A reading of Section 3 shows that two kinds of insults against the member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe are made punishable - one as defined under sub-section (ii)and the other as defined under sub section (x) of the said section. A combined reading of the two sub sections shows that under sub section (ii) insult can be caused to a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe by dumping excreta, waste matter, carcasses or any other obnoxious substance in his premises or neighbourhood, and to cause such insult, the dumping of excreta etc. need not necessarily be done in the presence of the person insulted and whereas under sub section (x) insult can be caused to the person insulted only if he is present in view of the expression “in any place within public view”. The words “within public view”, are referable only to the person insulted and not to the person who insulted him as the said expression is conspicuously absent in sub-section (ii) of Section 3 of Act 33/1989.By avoiding to use the expression “within public view” in sub section (ii), the Legislature has created two different kinds of offences - an insult caused to a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, even in his absence, by dumping excreta etc in his premises or neighbourhood and an insult by words caused to a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe “within public view” which means at the time of the alleged insult the person insulted must be present as, the expression “within public view” indicates or otherwise the Legislature would have avoided the use of the said expression which it avoided in sub-section (ii) or would have used the expression “in any public place”. Insult contemplated under sub section (ii) is different from the insult contemplated under sub section (x) as in the former a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe gets insulted by the physical act and whereas in the latter he gets insulted in public view by the words uttered by the wrong doer for which he must be present at the place. As stated earlier the words used in sub section (x) are not “in public place”, but “within public view” which means the public must view the person being insulted for which he must be present and no offence on the allegations under the said section gets attracted.” The Supreme Court, in appeal, approved the view taken by the learned Single Judge in M.A. Kuttappan v. E. Krishnan Nayanar ( (2004) 4 SCC 231 ) and dismissed the appeal. 5. Even according to the allegations in the first information statement and the final report, the incident had happened within the cockpit of an aircraft and by no stretch of reasoning, it can be found that it is a public place where public do have a direct view. 6. Learned Prosecutor opposed the application contending that the witnesses have deposed against the petitioner that on previous occasions also he used to abuse the defacto complainant by calling caste name. The specific incident raised by the defacto complainant happened on 22.12.2015 and he has not mentioned anything about the previous incidents. Therefore the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no offence is made out under the Act is to be accepted. Further, there is no material to hold that a dangerous weapon was used by the petitioner against the defacto complainant to cause injury in his eye. According to him, no such incident had happened. At any rate, offence under Section 324 IPC is also not attracted. In the result, the petition is allowed. Annexure-A5 charge pending in C.P.No.77 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thiruvananthapuram is hereby quashed. All pending interlocutory applications will stand closed.