Case Title : Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala
Bench : V.G.ARUN JUDGE
CRMC 1684/2023
Date : 30th June 2023
Facts:
- The appellant is the first accused in Crime No. 899 of 2023, registered at Elamakkara Police Station, for offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(u) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015) and Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act.
- The appellant is accused of intentionally humiliating the second respondent through false allegations and derogatory comments made in a video uploaded on the appellant’s online news channel.
- The appellant’s pre-arrest bail application was dismissed by the Special Court, citing that the publication of the video containing derisive and derogatory comments is sufficient to attract the alleged offences.
Analysis:
The appellant is the first accused in a criminal case registered under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015) and the Kerala Police Act. The charges are based on allegations that the appellant intentionally humiliated the second respondent, who belongs to a Scheduled Caste, through a video uploaded on the appellant’s online news channel.
The Special Court has dismissed the appellant’s application for pre-arrest bail, citing the publication of the video containing derogatory comments as sufficient evidence to support the alleged offences. The court relied on Section 18 of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, which limits the grant of anticipatory bail in cases under the Act.
The appellant’s defence argues that as an elected MLA, the second respondent is open to criticism, and the video only criticised certain actions without specifically targeting the second respondent’s caste. They contend that the offences under the SC/ST (PoA) Act are not applicable in this case.
The prosecution maintains that the video contained unsubstantiated allegations, insults, and insinuations, specifically targeting the second respondent, who belongs to a Scheduled Caste. They argue that the intention behind the video was to insult and humiliate the second respondent based on his caste.
The defence relies on Supreme Court decisions to argue that insults or intimidations do not constitute offences under the SC/ST (PoA) Act unless they specifically target a person based on their caste. The prosecution emphasises the specific allegations made by the second respondent in the complaint, claiming that the intention to insult and humiliate based on caste is evident.
The court’s judgement is still pending, and it will determine whether the offences under the SC/ST (PoA) Act are applicable based on the arguments and evidence presented by both sides.
Judgments and Arguments:
- Senior Advocate P. Vijaya Bhanu, representing the appellant, argues that the allegations raised against the second respondent were only criticism of certain actions and do not specifically target the second respondent’s caste. They contend that the offences under the SC/ST Act require insult or humiliation based on caste, and mere insult or humiliation is not enough.
- Senior Advocate T.A. Shaji, the Director General of Prosecution, argues that the appellant’s video contained intentional insults and humiliated the second respondent, who belongs to a Scheduled Caste. They argue that the offence under Section 3(1)(r) is attracted when a member of a Scheduled Caste or Tribe is intentionally insulted with the intent to humiliate them.
- Adv. P.K. Varghese, representing the second respondent, argues that the appellant’s video contained unsubstantiated allegations, insults, and insinuations against the second respondent, intending to insult and humiliate them as a member of the Scheduled Caste. They rely on previous court decisions to support the claim that such videos can attract offences under the SC/ST Act.
- The court notes that the Act aims to prevent atrocities against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, and the amendment in 2019 was made to address their vulnerability. The court finds that the video is intended to insult and humiliate the second respondent, based on the allegations and circumstances presented. The court opines that the offence under Section 3(1)(r) can be attracted even without explicit reference to the caste status of the victim.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY ANVITHA RAO
