The Allahabad High Court has clarified that mere occurrence of a physical altercation within a private residence, even involving a member of a Scheduled Caste, does not attract liability under Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act unless there is a clear allegation of caste-based abuse directed at the victim. This ruling reinforces the requirement of intentional humiliation grounded in caste identity, not just the identity of the victim.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The present criminal appeal challenges the summoning order dated 18.04.2026 issued by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Ghaziabad, against Arvind Kumar and two others under Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The case arises from Crime No. 18 of 2026 registered at Police Station Teelamod, District Trans Hindon, Commissionerate Ghaziabad, under multiple sections including 323, 110, 352, 351(2), 324(2), 117(2), 127(2), 3(5) B.N.S., and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.
Key Facts
- The incident occurred on 10.01.2026 inside the house of the informant, who is a member of a Scheduled Caste.
- The First Information Report (FIR) and statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. name Lalit and his sister Shakshi as the sole perpetrators of the alleged acts.
- The FIR and witness statements allege that Lalit and Shakshi beat the informant, abused him using caste-based slurs, and threatened to kill him.
- The present appellants - Arvind Kumar and two others - are not mentioned in any of the initial statements as having committed any act of violence, abuse, or threat.
- No allegation of caste-based language, physical assault, or intimidation has been made against the appellants in the FIR or in any recorded statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
- The injury report of the informant was not disputed, but it did not link the appellants to the injuries.
Procedural History
- 10.01.2026: Incident occurred inside the informant’s residence.
- 11.01.2026: FIR No. 18 of 2026 registered at Police Station Teelamod.
- 15.01.2026: Charge-sheet filed against five accused, including the present appellants.
- 18.04.2026: Special Judge issued summoning order against all accused, including appellants, under Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.
- 25.04.2026: Criminal Appeal No. 4897 of 2026 filed before the Allahabad High Court seeking quashing of summoning order.
- 18.05.2026: Hearing concluded before the Division Bench.
The Parties' Positions
The appellants contend that they were never implicated in any act of caste-based abuse or violence. They argue that the entire narrative of abuse and threat is confined to Lalit and Shakshi, and their inclusion under Section 3(2)(va) is legally untenable.
The State and the informant oppose the appeal, asserting that the occurrence of violence against a Scheduled Caste member in a private space is sufficient to invoke the SC/ST Act, and that the summoning order reflects a prima facie case.
Relief Sought
The appellants seek quashing of the summoning order dated 18.04.2026 and termination of all proceedings against them under Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act. They do not challenge proceedings under other penal provisions.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act can be invoked against individuals who are not alleged to have used caste-based abusive language or committed acts of humiliation, even when the victim is a member of a Scheduled Caste and the incident occurred in a private space.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellants relied on Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand (2020) 10 SCC 710, arguing that the SC/ST Act requires proof of intentional humiliation based on caste identity. They emphasized that the FIR and Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements contain no allegations against them whatsoever. They contended that inclusion under Section 3(2)(va) without any nexus to caste-based abuse constitutes a gross misuse of the statute and violates the principle of individualized liability.
For the Respondent
The State and informant argued that the incident occurred within a private space but involved a Scheduled Caste victim, and therefore the SC/ST Act applies. They contended that the presence of caste-based abuse in the same incident, even if attributed to co-accused, is sufficient to sustain charges against all persons present. They further argued that the trial court’s decision to issue summons was a prima facie assessment and should not be interfered with at this stage.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a meticulous review of the FIR and the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It found that the allegations of beating, abuse using caste-based slurs, and threats to kill were exclusively attributed to Lalit and Shakshi. The appellants were not mentioned in any of these accounts.
The Court then turned to the binding precedent in Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, where the Supreme Court held:
"Offence under the Act is not established merely on the fact that the informant is a member of a Scheduled Caste unless there is an intention to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for the reason that such person belongs to such caste."
The Court observed that the mere fact that the incident occurred inside a house does not negate the applicability of the Act, but equally, it cannot extend liability to persons who are not alleged to have committed any act of humiliation based on caste. The Court emphasized that the Act is not a blanket provision for any crime involving a Scheduled Caste victim; it requires a direct, intentional link between the act and the caste identity of the victim.
The Court further noted that the prosecution had not adduced any evidence or even pleaded any connection between the appellants and the caste-based abuse. To hold them liable under Section 3(2)(va) would be to impose collective guilt without individualized culpability, which is contrary to the principles of natural justice and the specific intent requirement under the Act.
The Court concluded that continuing proceedings against the appellants under Section 3(2)(va) would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
The Verdict
The appeal was partly allowed. The summoning order dated 18.04.2026 and all proceedings against the appellants under Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act were quashed. The remaining proceedings against the appellants under Sections 323, 110, 352, 351(2), 324(2), 117(2), 127(2), and 3(5) B.N.S. were affirmed and allowed to continue.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Caste-Based Abuse Must Be Specifically Alleged
- Practitioners must ensure that charges under Section 3(2)(va) are supported by explicit allegations of caste-based language or humiliation directed at the victim.
- Merely being present at the scene or being named as an accused in a general FIR is insufficient.
- Defense counsel should move to quash charges under Section 3(2)(va) where the accused are not mentioned in any witness statement as having used caste-based slurs or expressed intent to humiliate.
Private Space Does Not Shield or Impose Liability Automatically
- The location of the incident (private or public) is not determinative of liability under the SC/ST Act.
- The critical factor remains the presence of intentional humiliation based on caste.
- Courts must scrutinize the factual matrix with precision and avoid blanket application of the Act.
Prosecution Cannot Rely on Collective Liability
- The judgment reinforces that each accused must be individually linked to the specific ingredients of the offence.
- Prosecutors cannot impute the acts of one accused to others merely because they were present.
- This sets a clear precedent for challenging overbroad charges in SC/ST cases where multiple persons are named without individualized allegations.
