Whether the material on record discloses the essential ingredients of Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, particularly whether the alleged caste-based abuses were uttered at a place 'within public view'?

'Within public view' requires that the place be open, where members of the public can witness or hear the utterance made by the accused to the victim; if the alleged offence takes place within the four corners of a wall where members of the public are not present, it cannot be said to have taken place at a place within public view.

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Section 3(1)(r) — Section 3(1)(s) — Within public view — Quashing of proceedings — SC/ST Act, 1989 — s.3(1)(r), s.3(1)(s) — 'Within public view' — Meaning — Held: 'Within public view' under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act requires an open place where the public can witness or hear the utterance, not an enclosed space the public cannot access. (¶10, 11) SC/ST Act, 1989 — s.3(1)(r), s.3(1)(s) — Quashing — IPC charges unaffected — On facts, held: the alleged abuse occurred inside an enclosed room with no public access; the essential ingredient of public view is not satisfied, the SC/ST Act charges are quashed, and the proceedings continue for the remaining offences under the Indian Penal Code. Appeal allowed. (¶12, 15, 18, 19)

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of RAMKRISHNA CHAUHAN v. STATE OF U.P. & ANR — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India