HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRL.A.No.884 OF 2007 JUDGMENT This Criminal Appeal is directed against judgment dated 30.06.2008 passed in S.C.No.232 of 2004 by the Special Sessions Judge for Sc/ST Cases, Ananthapur, whereby and whereunder, the appellant-accused was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocites) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’), convicted therefor and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. The case of the prosecution is as follows: On 19.12.2002, when PW1 along with PW2 and PW3 conducting Grama Sabha for selection of agents for implementation of mid-day meals and asked the appellant-accused to vacate the site occupied by him, for which the accused refused to vacate the same and abused PW1 “Yerikalodu yemi chesthadu”, humiliated and deterred PW1 from performing his official duties. PW1 gave report to the police and the same was registered as a case in Cr.No.49 of 2002. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 6 and marked Exs.P1 to P3. On behalf of the defence, none were examined and no documents were marked. The learned Judge, after evaluating the entire evidence, convicted and sentenced the appellant- accused as stated above. Heard the arguments and perused the records. Now the point for consideration in this case is whether the words uttered by the appellant would attract an offence under Section 3 (1)(x) of the Act? Here, it would be appropriate to refer Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act and the same reads as under: “Intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view.” The main ingredients of the said Section are (1) there should be insult (2) there should be intimidation. The said insult or intimidation should be with an intention and it should be in the public view. In the present case, the accused abused PW1 as “Yerikalodu yemi chesthadu”. Combining both the words, certainly they would not attract an offence under Section 3 (1)(x) of the Act. What is needed to attract an offence under Section 3 (1)(x) of the Act is any insult or intimidation by attributing some character or discrimination in the name of the caste. Merely calling a person in the name of the case would not attract an offence under Section 3 (1)(x) of the Act. Hence, this Court is of the view that even admitting the case of the prosecution to be true, no offence is made out against the accused under Section 3 (1)(x) of the Act. Taking into consideration all these aspects, this Court is of the view that the appellant-accused can be acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act. In the result, the conviction and sentence recorded against the accused in S.C.No.232 of 2004 on the file of the Special Sessions Judge for SC/ST Cases, Anantapur, for the offence punishable under Section 3 (1)(x) of the Act, is set aside and the Criminal Appeal is allowed. __________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 13th March, 2014 rkk