'Bhangi, Neech, Bhikhari, Mangani': Rajasthan High Court Rules Alleged Slurs Not Caste-Specific

Jodhpur- The Rajasthan High Court, in a nuanced ruling, discharged four appellants in a case under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, observing that the alleged derogatory terms—“Bhangi,” “Neech,” “Bhikhari,” and “Mangani”—were not caste-specific. The court highlighted that these terms, while offensive, did not unequivocally point to caste-based discrimination, particularly in the absence of evidence that the accused were aware of the complainant's caste.

The case, stemming from a land encroachment survey dispute in Jaisalmer, involved allegations that the appellants obstructed public officials, used abusive language, and assaulted them. However, the court noted that the altercation appeared to be a reaction to the survey itself rather than an intentional act to humiliate the officials on caste grounds.

The judgment was delivered by Justice Birendra Kumar in response to a criminal appeal challenging the framing of charges by a lower court.

The appellants—Achal Singh (65), Madan Singh (38), Damodar Singh (43), and Surendra Singh (40), all residents of Silavta Pada, Jaisalmer—were accused of obstructing public officials during an anti-encroachment drive and using caste-based slurs against one of the officials, Harish Chandra, a member of a Scheduled Caste community.

Case Background

The incident dates back to January 31, 2011, when officials led by Harish Chandra conducted a survey to identify encroachments on public land allegedly made by Achal Singh. According to the prosecution, the accused obstructed the survey, used caste-based derogatory terms, and assaulted the officials.

Although the police investigation found the allegations unsubstantiated and filed a negative report, a Protest Petition by the complainant led the court to take cognizance and order the framing of charges under Sections 353 (assault or criminal force to deter a public servant from discharge of duty) and 332/34 (voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from duty) of the IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act.

High Court’s Analysis

Justice Kumar observed that the specific allegations did not satisfy the ingredients necessary for an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act. “There is no iota of evidence that the petitioners had knowledge about the caste of the informant,” the court noted, emphasizing that the incident appeared to be a dispute over land measurement rather than a deliberate act of caste-based humiliation.

The judgment also highlighted the absence of independent witnesses to the alleged caste-based abuses. “Only the informant and his officials are witnesses to the incident. No independent witness has turned up to corroborate these claims,” the court stated.

Relying on precedents such as Ramesh Chandra Vaishya vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023) and Dashrath Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2024), the court concluded that the alleged abuses were not sufficient to establish intent under the Atrocities Act.

Key Observations

• Public View Requirement: The court emphasized that offences under Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act require the act to be committed in "public view" with the intention of humiliating someone based on their caste. The lack of public witnesses weakened the prosecution’s case.

• Intent vs. Protest: “It is crystal clear that the petitioners were protesting against the survey measurements and not intending to humiliate the officials for their caste,” the court remarked.

• Independent Judicial Act: Citing Kola Ram vs. State of Rajasthan (1994), the court reiterated that framing charges is an independent judicial act and must be scrutinized separately from the cognizance stage.

The court quashed the charges under the Atrocities Act but upheld the prosecution under Sections 353 and 332/34 of the IPC for obstructing public servants in the discharge of their duties. “The petitioners are discharged of the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989,” Justice Kumar ruled, adding that “criminal prosecution for the other charges would go on.”