"10. To constitute an offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act? it is necessary that whoever: not being a member of a Scheduled Caste intentionally insults or intimidateswith intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tn'be in any place within public vj^w. The words "intentional", "insult" and"humiliatio'n" have been used in this section but they have not b^en defined in the act. As per Webster Dictionary("theword"intent" means having the mind bent on an object, "intentional" means do.ne purposely. The term "intentional" has been used to relation to act done by or with intention, which means to do wrong with in tent. As perlaw Lexicon, a person who, by this declaration, act or omission, had caused another to betieve a thing to be true and to act upon that belief, must be held to have done so "intentionally" within the meaning of the Statute. As per Webster, "to insult" is to treat with abuse, insolence, or contempt; to commit an indignity offered to another whether by act or by word isknown as"insult". An insuit is an indolent attack. As per Webster, in common parlance the word "humiliation" means to lower the dignity of, painfully humbling , the state of being humble and free from pride; As per Oxford dictiohary "humiliate" means to cause a person to feel disgrace, humble condition or attitude of mind, In the background of the definition of the aforesaid words, to prove the offence underthe aforesaid section, it is necessary that there must be an element of intentionally committing the insult or intimidating with intent to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste and for that the evidence of the witness should be consistent and reliable. When there is caste-based rivalry between the parties and hatred against the members of appellant community, the evidence has to be scrutinized carefully and there should be very cogent and independent evidence of causing insult intentionally."
