Dismissed¶8

The State of Goa Thr. Dy. Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch v. Manjiri Dhargalkar and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC17 Jun 2025CRIR/7/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court at Goa, Criminal Revision Application No.7 of 2022 (17 CRIR 7-2022), decided 17.06.2025 by Valmiki Menezes, J. State of Goa challenged discharge dated 09.12.2021 under S.3(1)(r)(s) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Key terms: discharge; prima facie evidence; ingredients of S.3(1)(r)(s); caste abuse; members of public; within earshot; public view; Ramesh Chandra Vaishya (2023) 17 SCC 615; revision dismissed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

For an offence under Section 3(1)(r)(s) to be sustained, the utterance or insult by the Accused referring to the caste of the Complainant has to be made to members of the public who are present during the incident. ¶4

The State of Goa Thr. Dy. Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch Vs Manjiri Dhargalkar and 2 Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶8

Issue for consideration

Whether the Sessions Court erred in discharging the Accused of offences under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST Act despite the prima facie evidence in the witnesses' statements. +1 more

¶3

Court's answer

The Sessions Court adverted to the correct considerations of the ingredients of Section 3(1)(r)(s) and considered the witnesses' statements, correctly concluding that the ingredients of the offence did not exist; there is no infirmity in the discharge order, which is sustained.

¶7

Ratio / Principle

¶4

Key takeaways

Mere hurling of caste-related abuses is not sufficient to bring out the ingredients of the offence; the abuse must be heard or witnessed by members of the public who are within earshot of the utterance.ratio¶4
Although a separate revision against Respondent No.2 would have been time-barred, the Court examined the application qua both discharged Accused since Respondent No.2 had been discharged by the very same impugned order and was impleaded in the pending Revision.ratio¶2

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision by the State of Goa against an order of discharge dated 09.12.2021, discharging the Respondents of offences under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, dismissed. Held: to sustain an offence under Section 3(1)(r)(s), the utterance or insult referring to the Complainant's caste must be made to members of the public present during the incident, and must be heard or witnessed by members of the public within earshot; mere hurling of caste-related abuses is insufficient. Reliance placed on Ramesh Chandra Vaishya v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., (2023) 17 SCC 615. The Sessions Court had adverted to the correct ingredients on the witnesses' statements; no infirmity in the discharge order, which was sustained. Though a separate revision against Respondent No.2 would have been time-barred, the application was examined qua both discharged Accused. No costs.

2025:BHC-GOA:963

17 CRIR 7-2022

Jose

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.7 OF 2022

¶6

THE STATE OF GOA THR. DY. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CRIME BRANCH.

¶7

... Applicant.

¶8

Versus

¶9

MANJIRI DHARGALKAR AND 2 ORS.

¶10

... Respondents.

¶11

Mr. Pravin Faldessai, Additional Public Prosecutor for the Applicant.

¶12

Mr. C.A. Ferreira, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Nehal Govekar. Mr. Sujay Kamulkar and Mr. Rakesh Naik, Advocates for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶13

Mr. Vasudev Shirodkar, Advocate for Respondent No.3.

¶14

CORAM: VALMIKI MENEZES, J. DATED: 17^th June, 2025

¶15

P.C:

¶16

1. This is a Criminal Revision impugning an order of discharge dated 09.12.2021, whereby the Respondents have been discharged of the offences alleged to have been committed under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶17

2. At the time the Criminal Revision Application was filed, the

Page 1 of 4

17^th June, 2025

17 CRIR 7-2022

same was filed only against Respondent No.1 who was the original Accused No.1 arraigned in the charge-sheet. That Revision was filed within the period of limitation. However, subsequent thereto, the Respondent No.2 was impleaded in the Revision Application being the Accused No.2 who had also been discharged under the very same impugned order. On the face of it, the Revision Application would have been time-barred if preferred separately against the Respondent No.2. Nevertheless, the application is examined qua both the Accused against whom the offences have been alleged.

¶22

3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the Sessions Court has committed an error in discharging the Accused as it has failed to appreciate the prima facie evidence in the statements made by the witnesses; it was further submitted that the Sessions Court has failed to take into account the fact that the surname of the Complainant was “Gawade” and not “Gaudi”. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the specific words uttered, as alleged in the complaint would, per se, constitute an offence under the Act. He further submits that there is enough material in the form of statements of witnesses or neighbours who heard the abuses, to bring out the offence.

¶23

4. The ingredients for an offence to be sustained under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Atrocities Act, the utterance or insult by the Accused referring to the caste of the Complainant has to be made to members of the public who are present during the incident. Mere hurling of

Page 2 of 4

17^th June, 2025

17 CRIR 7-2022

caste related abuses are not sufficient to bring out the ingredients of the offence and what is required is that the same should be heard or witnessed by members of the public who are within earshot of the utterance.

¶28

5. In Ramesh Chandra Vaishya v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. reported in (2023) 17 SCC 615 , the requirements of the provisions of Section 3(1)(r)(s) have been considered in the following terms:

¶29

“ 14. Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act, prior to its amendment notified vide S.O. 152(E) dated 18-1-2016, read as follows:

¶30

“3. Punishments for offences of atrocities. — (1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, — ***

¶31

(x) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view;

¶32

15. The first FIR, registered at the instance of the complainant, is silent about the place of occurrence and who, being a member of the public, was present when the appellant is alleged to have hurled caste related abuses at the complainant. However, on a reading of the second FIR registered at the behest of the appellant, it appears that the incident took place at the house of the appellant.

¶33

16. The first question that calls for an answer is whether it was at a place within public view that the appellant hurled caste related abuses at the complainant with an intent to insult or intimidate with an intent to humiliate him. From the charge-sheet dated 21-1-2016 filed by the IO, it appears that the prosecution would seek to rely on the evidence of three witnesses to drive home the charge against the appellant of committing offences under sections 323 and 504, IPC

Page 3 of 4

17^th June, 2025

17 CRIR 7-2022

and 3(1)(x), SC/ST Act. These three witnesses are none other than the complainant, his wife and their son. Neither the first FIR nor the charge-sheet refers to the presence of a fifth individual (a member of the public) at the place of occurrence (apart from the appellant, the complainant, his wife and their son). Since the utterances, if any, made by the appellant were not “in any place within public view”, the basic ingredient for attracting section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act was missing/absent. We, therefore, hold that at the relevant point of time of the incident (of hurling of caste related abuse at the complainant by the appellant), no member of the public was present. ”

¶38

6. The learned Sessions Judge has made detailed reference to the statements of the Complainant and has addressed precisely this issue, as to whether the ingredients of the offence have been made out. The considerations are found in paragraphs 13 to 15 and 25 of the Judgment.

¶39

7. On perusing the findings given by the Sessions Court I am of the opinion that it has adverted to the correct considerations of the ingredients of the provisions of Section 3(1)(r)(s) and has considered the statements of the witnesses, to correctly arrive at the conclusion that the ingredients of the offence of which the Accused were charged of, did not exist. There is no infirmity in the impugned order and the same is sustained.

¶40

8. The Revision Application is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.

¶41

VALMIKI MENEZES, J.

¶42

Page 4 of 4

¶43

17^th June, 2025

¶44

Signed by: JOSE FRANCISCO DSOUZA Designation: Personal Assistant Date: 17/06/2025 18:45:45

The State of Goa Thr. Dy. Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch v. Manjiri Dhargalkar and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Goa Thr. Dy. Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch v. Manjiri Dhargalkar and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Late Rajendra Vasudev Deshprabhu Represented by His Son Vassudev Rajendra Deshprabhu Vs Manguesh Savlaram Mandrekar (Since Deceased) and 3 Ors.

Reez Ibrahim Shaikh, Presently Lodged in Judicial Custody at Central Jail Colvale Vs State of Goa, Thr. the Police Inspctor and Anr.

Navnath Antu Naik and Anr., Vs the Communidade of Savoi Verem, through Its Attorney Prabhakar Vinayak Nigle and Anr.

Micah Gumbi, Presently at Modern Central Jail, Colvale Goa Vs State of Goa, Thr. Police Inspector, Canacona Police Station and Anr.

Ajmatulla Shaikh Vs Mumtaz Shaikh

Atul Prabhakar Raut, Presently Lodged in Judicial Custody, Central Jail Colvale Vs Fakira Hosmani and Anr.