True import and meaning of the expression "within public view" occurring in section 3(1)(x) of the SC and ST Act- A judgment of AP HIgh Court

 Sanapala Uma Pathi vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 23 September, 2022 

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY,

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2996 OF 2021 

14.True import of the expression "within public view" will have to be ascertained having regard to the legislative intent and the mischief sought to be cured. However, it would be useful to refer to the decision of this Court as well as other High Courts before ascertaining the true import and meaning of the expression "within public view" occurring in section 3(1)(x) of the SC and ST Act. Delhi High Court had an occasion to interpret the meaning of expression "within public view" appearing in clause 

 (x). Incidentally it may be pointed out that there was a disagreement in respect of the interpretation and the scope of the expression "within public view" between the Judges of the Division Bench and the matter was referred to 3rd Judge. The decision reported in (2004) Delhi Law Crimes 915 in the matter of Daya Bhatnagar & Ors. Vs. State, refers to the Objects and Reasons for enactment of the statute, dictionary meaning of the word "public" given in corpus secundum and Blacks law dictionary and the principles of interpretation of statute. In para 19 of the report it is observed that "The SC and ST Act was enacted with laudable object to protect vulnerable section of the society. Sub-clauses (i) to (xv) of Section 3 (1) of the Act enumerate various kinds of atrocities that might be perpetrated against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, which constitute an offence. However, Sub-clause (x) is the only clause where even offending "utterances" have been made punishable. The Legislature required intention as an essential ingredient for the offence of insult, intimidation and humiliation of a member of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view. Offences under the Act are quite grave and provide stringent punishments. Graver is the offence, stronger should be the proof. The interpretation which suppresses or evades the mischief and advances the object of the Act has to be adopted. Keeping this in view, looking to the aims and objects of the Act, the expression "public view" in section 3(1)(x) of the Act has to be interpreted to mean that the public persons present, (however small number it may be), should be independent and impartial and not interested in any of the parties. In other words, the persons having any kind of close relationship or association with the complainant, would necessarily get excluded."

 19. Considering the judicial pronouncements on the subject, the expression within public view must be construed to mean that the insult or humiliation must take place in the presence of or in the proximity of at least one independent person. The test of audibility and visibility can be taken to have been satisfied if an independent person is actually present or is at a place where the utterances are clearly audible and reaches the scene of occurrence while the incident is still in progress."