"SC/ST Act Does Not Apply to Incidents Without Public Witnesses"

IMPORTANT PARA'S:

9. There is no clarity as to the place of occurrence, whether it was at the residential building in the disputed land or at the house of PW-3. In this context, we once again look at the complaint filed, which spoke of the house trespass by breaking the lock of the house of the complainant. However none of the witnesses spoke of breaking a lock or trespass into the house and on the contrary, claimed that the occurrence occurred in a field; obviously to make out a case of the insult levelled and abuses thrown, to be within public view. As we noticed, there is nothing to indicate that there was anybody present in the vicinity of the alleged scene of occurrence, other than family members of the complainant. When PW-1 categorically negatived the presence of any other person except himself, his wife, brother and his nephew; at the scene of occurrence, it cannot be said to have occurred in public view; thus, absolving the accused of any offence under clause (r) or (s) of Section 3 of the SC & ST Act. Insofar as clause (f) of Section 3(1) of the Act, there is no allegation in the complaint that the complainant and her family were forcefully evicted from the land.

10. PW-1 specifically says that the place of occurrence is at a distance of 1 km from his house. He also submitted that there is a residential house constructed in the disputed land by one of the accused 20 years ago which house was remaining deserted. With the above scenario in mind, we can only find that the de-facto complainant, in the FIR, had talked about the house in which she was residing while alleging trespass on the accused persons. However, no such allegation is even spoken of in the oral evidence; thus, putting to jeopardy the offence of house trespass too.

11. We cannot but find that there are gross inconsistencies insofar as the complaint and the oral evidence led by way of deposition before the Court. The place of occurrence was stated to be the house, in the complaint, while all the witnesses spoke of the alleged incident having occurred in the field, which was the disputed land. In any event, there is no scope for finding either clause (r) or (s) of Section 3(1) of the SC & ST Act since PW-1 has categorically stated that there was no member of the public present at the time the incident occurred. Insofar as the allegation under clause (f) of Section 3(1) there is nothing to indicate that the complainant and her family were forcefully evicted from the disputed land or that the accused occupied it illegally after delivery was effected on 25.04.2005. As far as the house trespass is concerned, the oral evidence does not support it. On the above reasoning we find absolutely no reason to sustain the conviction as entered into by the Magistrate's Court confirmed by the High Court. We set aside the order of the Magistrate as confirmed by the High Court and acquit the appellants herein.