Abuse Must Be in Public View to Attract SC/ST Act: Delhi High Court Acquits Officer

“Foundational Requirement of Public View Missing – Complaint Silent on Time, Place, and Presence of Witnesses”, Delhi High Court set aside the conviction of a senior officer under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, ruling that the essential requirement of the offence — abuse “within public view” — was not established in the complaint or the evidence.

Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha, allowing the appeal, held that the absence of specific averments regarding time, place, or presence of public witnesses, coupled with a long delay in filing the complaint and evidence of departmental hostility, rendered the conviction unsustainable.

The Court firmly held, “To be a place within ‘public view’, as referred to in the Section, the place should be open where members of the public can witness or hear the utterances made by the accused to the victim. If it is done in a place where members of the public are not present, then it cannot be said that it has taken place at a place within public view.”

“Improvement Over Original Complaint Weakens Prosecution Case Beyond Repair”

The appellant, Udaiveer Singh, had been convicted in 2016 by the Sessions Court for allegedly abusing his subordinate, a contractual worker belonging to a Scheduled Caste, with caste-based slurs. The conviction was primarily based on oral testimony of the complainant (PW2) and co-workers. However, the original complaint dated 22.10.2013 made to the SC Commission was found to be vague and silent on crucial aspects.

Justice Sudha observed, “The complaint does not mention date, time or the place at which the offence was committed or that it was done in public view.” While prosecution witnesses claimed in Court that the abuse occurred in public, the Court treated this as a material improvement over the complaint — one that casts serious doubt on the credibility of the allegations.

Referring to Supreme Court precedents, including Karuppudayar v. State (AIR 2025 SC 705) and Deepak Kumar Tala v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2025 SCC OnLine SC 638), the Court reaffirmed the legal position that public view is an indispensable component under Section 3(1)(x) and its absence is fatal.

“Delay Coupled With Vindictive Motive Probabilises Defence of False Implication”

A pivotal finding in the judgment was the unexplained delay of nearly eight months in filing the complaint. Though delay alone is not fatal, the Court emphasized that it gained significance in the backdrop of admitted facts that the appellant had issued departmental memos to the complainant and several witnesses for dereliction of duty.

Quoting from PW2’s own cross-examination, the Court noted: “It is correct that the accused had issued a memo to me prior to 6.9.2013… for not working properly and for not properly breeding of mosquitoes.”

Justice Sudha remarked, “This aspect along with the delay in giving the complaint does probabilise the defence case that the complaint was given as an afterthought as memo had been issued by the appellant to PW2 for dereliction of duty.”

The Court further noted that several prosecution witnesses were also recipients of similar memos and had grievances against the appellant, thereby casting doubt on their impartiality. Yet, despite claims that the incident occurred in public view, “no independent public witness was examined,” which, according to the Court, made it unsafe to rely on their testimony without corroboration.

“Conviction Cannot Stand When Essential Ingredients Are Missing”

In a strongly worded rebuke of the trial court’s findings, the High Court held: “The trial court went wrong in relying on the unsatisfactory evidence on record to find the accused guilty. I find that the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.”

The Court emphasized that intention to insult with reference to caste must be clearly linked to a public setting, and that speculative testimony based on hostility between co-workers cannot justify a conviction under a stringent provision like the SC/ST Act.

Conviction Set Aside, Officer Acquitted

Allowing the appeal under Section 374(2) CrPC, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence dated 12.04.2016 and 19.04.2016, respectively. The appellant was acquitted under Section 235(1) CrPC, and all pending applications were disposed of.

The decision reaffirms the principle that conviction under special penal statutes must meet strict evidentiary thresholds, especially where the allegation hinges on subjective elements such as intention and humiliation. The Court underscored that such prosecutions must not become tools of vendetta or workplace retaliation.

Date of Decision: January 27, 2026