New Delhi: While squashing charges against four persons, the Rajasthan high court has ruled that words such as bhangi (scavenger), neech (lowly person), bhikhari (beggar), and mangani (beggar) are not caste names and their usage does not warrant charges under the 1989 Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes Act.
High court judge Justice Birendra Kumar made this observation in a case where the petitioners were accused of using these terms against government officials during a 2011 inspection of alleged encroachments in Jaisalmer.
“The words used were not caste name nor there is allegation that the petitioners were known to the caste of the public servants, who had gone to remove the encroachments. Moreover, it is crystal clear on bare perusal of allegation that the petitioners were not intending to humiliate the (public servants) for the reason that they were members of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes rather act of the petitioners was in protest against the action of measurements being wrongly done by the public servants,” the court said in its November 12 order, as quoted by Bar and Bench.
In January 2011, public officials inspecting encroachments on public land in Jaisalmer alleged that they were obstructed and verbally abused with derogatory terms by the petitioners, led by Achal Singh.
This led to a criminal case under the Indian Penal Code Sections 353 (assault to deter a public servant), 332 (causing hurt to deter public servant), and 34 (common intention), along with Section 3(1)(X) of the SC/ST Act.
The police initially concluded there was no evidence and submitted a negative report, but a protest petition prompted the trial court to frame charges under the SC/ST Act.
The accused challenged the case in the high court, arguing that there was no basis for the charges under the SC/ST Act. They claimed ignorance of the complainants’ caste and highlighted the absence of independent witnesses to confirm the incident occurred in public view.
The high court agreed with the petitioners, noting that the allegations lacked independent corroboration.
“In the case on hand, only the informant and its officials are witnesses of the incident, no independent witness has turned up to support that he was the witness of the incident,” the court observed.
Consequently, the court discharged the petitioners from SC/ST Act charges but upheld the IPC charges, finding prima facie evidence of obstruction of public servants performing their duties.
“While there is prima facie allegation that the petitioners obstructed in the official discharge of public duty by the respondent and therefore for that act of the petitioners, criminal prosecution would go on,” the court said.
