Section 3(1)(s) Atrocities Act | Caste Slur in Public View with Independent Witness Corroboration Justifies Custodial Interrogation : Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court has reaffirmed that caste-based abuse in a public place attracts the stringent provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Court dismissed a bail appeal, emphasizing that the use of a caste slur in public view, corroborated by an independent witness, prima facie establishes an offence under the Act, warranting custodial interrogation.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The appellants, Gopal Pandurang Raut and Kishor Pandurang Raut, both barbers from Longaon, Beed district, were accused of assaulting Balasaheb Maroti Sonkamble, a labourer, following a quarrel at a hotel. The informant alleged that the appellants abused him with a caste slur and assaulted him with an iron pipe, causing grievous injuries. The incident led to the registration of Crime No. 248/2025 under Sections 118(1), 115(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Key Facts

• 30.09.2025: The informant lodged an FIR alleging that on 26.09.2025, at approximately 04:30 p.m., the appellants abused him with a caste slur at Vishnu Jadhav’s hotel after a minor altercation over spilled water.
• The appellants allegedly intercepted the informant near their saloon, assaulted him with an iron pipe, and threatened to kill him.
• The informant sustained seven injuries, including a dislocated fragment of the styloid process of the left wrist, classified as grievous.
• The iron pipe used in the assault was not recovered by the police.
• The appellants claimed the informant was drunk and initiated the assault, leading to a counter-complaint (N.C. report) filed by Appellant No. 1.

Procedural History

• 29.10.2025: The Special Judge (Atrocities Act), Majalgaon, rejected the appellants’ bail application.
• 22.06.2026: The appellants filed the present Criminal Appeal (No. 353 of 2026) before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench.

Relief Sought

The appellants sought bail, contending that the offence under the Atrocities Act was not attracted as the incident did not occur in public view and lacked independent corroboration.

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether the use of a caste slur in a public place, corroborated by an independent witness, attracts the provisions of Section 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, thereby invoking the bar under Section 18 of the Act against grant of bail.

Arguments Presented

For the Appellants

• The appellants argued that the informant was drunk and initiated the assault, leading to a counter-complaint (N.C. report) by Appellant No. 1.
• No offence under the Atrocities Act was attracted as the incident did not occur in public view, and no independent witness corroborated the caste slur.
• The delay of four days in lodging the FIR was unexplained.
• Reliance was placed on Keshaw Mahto alias Keshaw Kumar Mahto v. State of Bihar and Anr. (2026 SCC Online SC 799) and Yogesh Laxman Pandav and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 858 of 2022) to argue that the offence did not fall within the purview of the Atrocities Act.

For the Respondent/State

• The appellants assaulted the informant with an iron pipe, which was yet to be recovered.
• The appellants suppressed the fact of registration of a counter-offence against Appellant No. 1.
• The offence occurred in public view, as corroborated by Vishnu Jadhav, the hotel owner.
• The informant’s hospitalization delayed the FIR lodging.

The Court's Analysis

The Court examined the factual matrix and legal precedents cited by the appellants. It observed:

"The incident occurred in the hotel, i.e., a public place, where Appellants categorically abused the Informant with a caste slur. The informant's complaint is prima facie corroborated by an independent witness, Vishnu Jadhav, who is the hotel owner. He also stated that the Appellants abused the Informant with a caste slur and assaulted him by means of an iron pipe, causing injury."

The Court noted that the informant sustained seven grievous injuries, necessitating medical attention and an X-ray. The nature of the injuries, coupled with the failure to recover the iron pipe, underscored the need for custodial interrogation.

Regarding the appellants’ reliance on Keshaw Mahto, the Court distinguished the case, holding:

"The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paragraph No. 16 of the judgment in Keshaw Mahto (supra) has observed that if a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe was abused by the Accused by the caste name in any place within the public view, then it would constitute an offence under Section 3(1)(s) of the Atrocities Act. Therefore, in my view, the observation made in the said judgment is helpful to the prosecution instead of the Appellants in the present case."

The Court further distinguished Yogesh Pandav, noting that the informant’s statement was corroborated by an independent witness, unlike the facts in the cited precedent.

The Verdict

The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that:

1. The use of a caste slur in a public place, corroborated by an independent witness, prima facie attracts Section 3(1)(s) of the Atrocities Act.
2. The bar under Section 18 of the Atrocities Act applies, precluding the grant of bail.
3. The appellants’ custodial interrogation is necessary, particularly as the iron pipe used in the assault remains unrecovered.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Caste Slur in Public View: A Strict Liability Offence

• The judgment reinforces that Section 3(1)(s) of the Atrocities Act is attracted when a caste slur is used in a public place, irrespective of the accused’s intent.
• Practitioners must note that the presence of an independent witness can decisively tilt the case in favour of the prosecution, even if the accused denies the allegations.

Corroboration and Custodial Interrogation

• Courts are likely to deny bail where grievous injuries are involved, and the weapon of offence remains unrecovered.
• The judgment underscores the importance of medical evidence and witness statements in establishing a prima facie case under the Atrocities Act.

Precedents Must Be Applied Contextually

• Reliance on judgments like Keshaw Mahto and Yogesh Pandav must be fact-specific. Courts will distinguish precedents where the factual matrix differs, such as the presence of corroborative evidence or public view.