Bombay HC: How to appreciate prosecution evidence when investigating officer has failed to secure independent witnesses even though incident occurred in public place?

As such there are major contradictions in the evidence of these five witnesses. What is more surprising is that the Investigating Officer did not get any independent witness in the reservation hall, where hundreds of persons are always present during reservation hours. The argument of the Applicant that a false case has been concocted against him and he has been intentionally removed from the railway platform, where he was running a food stall, appears to be probable. In my opinion, the Applicant has been able to probabilise his case. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses appears to be wholly doubtful. The learned trial court and the appellate court in fact could not have accepted such a contrary evidence of constables and head constable belonging to the same department. {Para 5}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Criminal Revision Application No. 149 of 2005

Decided On: 21.08.2014

George Cyriac Maruthukunnel Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram: M.L. Tahaliyani, J.

Citation: 2015 ALL MR (Cri) 897, MANU/MH/2748/2014

Print Page

Bombay HC: When abuses in the name of caste is given inside the house, offence under SC & ST (Atrocities) Act is not attracted

 We would like to deal with the allegations against accused Almas and Pappu @ Irfan Shaikh. Accused Almas is the wife of accused Rijwan and Pappu @ Irfan is the brother of accused Rijwan. As aforesaid, the initial report was only against accused Rijwan and, therefore, the offence was registered only under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 of Indian Penal Code against him. But then on the basis of said supplementary statement of which major contents have been reproduced earlier, we will have to consider where the role of accused Almas and Pappu Shaikh has been described. As per the said FIR, accused Almas came in picture after marriage between Rijwan and informant on 15.07.2022. She says that after they both started residing together at a different place, accused Almas used to go there in the house and used to abuse her by saying that she is not Muslim, but of the inferior caste and, therefore, she should give divorce to her husband. Here, the alleged abuse is stated to be inside the house and, therefore, it cannot be considered as a public place and not even within the public view to attract Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Atrocities Act. It is not stated in the supplementary statement as to who had heard those abuses. If the informant and the said accused Almas were the only person present in the house, then it will not even attract Section 3(2)(va) of the Atrocities Act. Thereafter it is stated that the informant had gone to the house of Rijwan two to three days after 26.07.2022. Rijwan's house is situated in Kanjar Lane, Sadar Bazar, Bhingar, Tq. and Dist. Ahmednagar. In the said house, she was beaten by accused Almas and abused in the name of caste. It is then stated that at the same time accused Pappu Shaikh, who was present in front of the house of Rijwan as well as accused Altaf, who is nephew, abused her in the name of caste. She has not stated exact where the incident has taken place, but since she was inside the house when accused Almas has abused her in the name of caste, there is a scope to consider that the alleged abuses by the other two accused i.e. Pappu @ Irfan and his son Altaf were also inside the house. At the cost of repetition it can be said that these statements taken as it is will not attract Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) much less Section 3(2)(va) of the Atrocities Act. Police have also invoked Section 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii) of the Atrocities Act, but they cannot be against accused Almas and Pappu @ Irfan. Nobody else has seen them assaulting the informant. The scrutiny of all these contentions was required in order to see as to whether offence under the Atrocities Act has been made out or not. In view of the decision in Prathvi Raj Chauhan Vs. Union of India and others, [MANU/SC/0157/2020 : (2020) 4 SCC 727], if prima facie case is not made out against the accused invoking the Atrocities Act, then such accused can be released on bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as there will not be bar under Section 18 or 18-A of the Atrocities Act. We, therefore, come to conclusion at this stage on the basis of the material which is before us that no such prima facie case has been made out to attract the offence under the Atrocities Act against accused Almas and Pappu Shaikh. Their application before the learned Special Judge under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not barred under Section 18 or 18-A of the Atrocities Act.  {Para 7}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Criminal Appeal Nos. 119 of 2023, 974 of 2022 and 946 of 2022

Decided On: 11.04.2023

Rijwan Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Citation: 2023(2) ABR (CRI) 712: AIRONLINE 2023 Bom 756. MANU/MH/1445/2023

Print Page

Bombay HC: Under which circumstances, Abuses given on telephone does not amount to offence under SC & ST Atrocities Act?

The informant, her husband and mother were sitting in the court-yard of her house. Then she says that the appellant gave a phone call on her mobile, she told that he should settle the dispute between him and his wife. But the appellant was making grievances against his wife with the informant. She had cut the phone after giving the advise. But, thereafter, according to her, the present appellant was calling her again and again and abusing. She further says that two social workers, who were with her, advised her to put the phone on speaker mode and listen as to what the appellant is saying. It is stated that the present appellant gave abuses in the name of caste to the informant. {Para 5}

14. The fact that is then ought to have been thoroughly considered by the learned Special Judge, Nandurbar was whether the appellant had knowledge about putting the mobile phone on speaker mode by the informant. Certainly when no such document is forthcoming, at this stage, at the cost of repetitions, it can be said that prima facie, the offence under the SC and ST Act is not made out.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 2021 and Criminal Application No. 396/2021

Decided On: 04.05.2021

Mahesh Bhikaji Badave Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Vibha Kankanwadi, J.

Citation: 2022(2) ABR(CRI)389: AIRONLINE 2021 Bom 7134, MANU/MH/1270/2021.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Under which circumstances, chamber of public servant is not public place as per SC & ST (Atrocities) Act?

Taking the allegations in the FIR at their face value, it would reveal that what is alleged is that when the complainant was in his office the Accused came there; enquired with the complainant; not being satisfied, started abusing him in the name of his caste; and insulted him. Thereafter, three colleagues of the complainant came there, pacified the Accused and took him away. {Para 13}

14. It is thus clear that even as per the FIR, the incident has taken place within the four corners of the chambers of the complainant. The other colleagues of the complainant arrived at the scene after the occurrence of the incident.

15. We are, therefore, of the considered view that since the incident has not taken place at a place which can be termed to be a place within public view, the offence would not come under the provisions of either Section 3(1)(r) or Section 3(1)(s) of the SC-ST Act.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 96-97 of 2025 

Decided On: 31.01.2025

Karuppudayar Vs. State Rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lalgudi Trichy and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B.R. Gavai,  and Augustine George Masih, , JJ.

Author: B.R. Gavai, J.

Citation: 2025 INSC 132, MANU/SC/0129/2025,AIR 2025 SC 705

Print Page

Whether Doctor's Consultation Room is a Public Place?

 Admittedly, the place of occurrence is the consulting

room of the petitioner at the T.M. Hospital, Chavakkad. It can

never be termed as a public place or near public place.{Para 8}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

CRL.MC NO. 2322 OF 2018

DR.K.K.RAMACHANDRAN Vs  SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE  VADANAPPALLY POLICE STATION, 

PRESENT

 DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

Dated:  20th day of December, 2022

Print Page

Whether the private vehicle is a public place as per S 43 of the NDPS Act?

  The evidence in the present case clearly shows that the vehicle was not a public conveyance but was a vehicle belonging to accused Gurdeep Singh. The Registration Certificate of the vehicle, which has been placed on record also does not indicate it to be a Public Transport Vehicle. The explanation to Section 43 shows that a private vehicle would not come within the expression “public place” as explained in Section 43 of the NDPS  Act. On the strength of the decision of this Court in Jagraj Singh alias Hansa , the relevant provision would not be Section 43 of the NDPS Act but the case would come under Section 42 of the NDPS Act. {Para 12}

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.421 OF 2021

BOOTA SINGH & OTHERS Vs STATE OF HARYANA 

Uday Umesh Lalit, J.

Dated: April 16, 2021.

Print Page

Whether it is mandatory to prepare and prove spot panchnama in offence U/S 294 of IPC?

 Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code

 [294. Obscene acts and songs.—Whoever, to the annoyance of others—

(a) does any obscene act in any public place, or

(b) sings, recites or utters any obscene song, ballad or words, in or near any public place, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine, or with both.]

As per this section offence should occur in a public place. Hence the prosecution must prove that crime happened in a public place. Therefore it is mandatory for investigating officer to prepare spot panchnama to show that offence occurred in a public place. The prosecution can also prove that incident happened in a public place by adducing other evidence.

Print Page

Whether sending the personal messages on WhatsApp will amount to the utterance of obscene words in a public place?

Thus, the literature published on Website clearly indicates

that the WhatsApp messages sent by one person to another are end-toend

encrypted which means, only the sender of the message and the

recipient of the message can read the messages. It also claims that

nobody in between, not even WhatsApp, can read these messages.

These messages are secured with lock and only the recipient and

sender have special key needed to unlock and read them. It further

claims that every message sent has its own unique lock and key. It

also claims that the WhatsApp does not store the messages on server,

once they are delivered. Thus, this literature available on the Website

of the WhatsApp, makes it abundantly clearly that such types of

messages are strictly personal messages and nobody even the

WhatsApp can have access to these messages which means nobody

except the sender and the recipient can read the messages. Thus,

when these messages cannot be read by others, it ipso-facto goes to

show that no third person nor even WhatsApp can have access to those

messages. Therefore, WhatsApp cannot be a public place if messages

are exchanged on personal accounts of two persons. If these messages

had been posted on WhatsApp Group, in that case the same could

have been called as public place because all the members of the

group, will have access to those messages. It is not the prosecution

case that the alleged obscene messages were posted on WhatsApp

Group of which the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 and others are

the members. Therefore, sending the personal messages on WhatsApp

will not amount to utterance of obscene words in public place.

Therefore, Section 294 of the I.P.C. cannot be invoked.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 557 OF 2018

Nivrutti  Hariram Gaikwad, Vs The State of Maharashtra,

CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE &

M.G. SEWLIKAR, JJ.

Dated : 11.03.2020

JUDGMENT : [PER : M.G. SEWLIKAR, J.]

Print Page

When offence under SC &SC Atrocities Act is not made out?

I have given thoughful consideration to the rival

submissions and gone through the material available on

record.

As per written report (Ex.P3) there were two

witnesses who saw the whole incident. Those two witnesses

have been examined as Sikander Ali (PW-2) and Dev Kishan

(PW-6). Sikander Ali (PW-2) states that he saw only a crowd

and does not speak anything more about incident. Dev kishan

(PW-6) states about the occurrence of the incident which

happened with regard to parking of the vehicle but does not

corroborate the incident of beating or abusing by caste. He

saw both of them only having hot talks. Both Sikander Ali

(PW-2) and Dev Kishan (PW-6) were declared hostile .

Nanak Chand (PW-9) and Mukesh (PW-5) have also

been examined as eye-witnesses by the prosecution. They

have also turned hostile and states nothing about incident.6

Radhey Shyam (PW-3), in his statement has

narrated the incident as it is mentioned in Ex-P3. He further

states that he was subjected to medical examination.

Sonograpy was suggested but he did not get it done. On the

contrary, Dr.R.K.Sharma (PW-4) who medically examined

Radhey Shyam, has stated that he did not find any visible

injury on the person of Radhey Shyam. On complaint made by

Radhey Shyam about pain in his abdomen, suggested

sonography. In cross-examination, he stated that on

sonograpy, no injury was found in the abdomen.

It is a sine qua none that intentional insult or

intimidation with intent to humiliate a member of Scheduled

Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, is to be made at any place within

public view. Here in the instant matter, as per prosecution

story the incident occurred at public place i.e. a tea shop. But

none of persons present there, has stated that in their view,

Radhy Shyam (PW.3) was intentionally humiliated or insulted.

As such, charge under Section 3(1)(X) is not found proved.

So far charge of using criminal force is concerned,

nobody has corroborated that appellant used any criminal

force during the incident. Dev Kishan (PW-6) has stated that

both of them were having hot talk only.

Reportable

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR

RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Appeal No.111/1995

Ram Kishan Mangilal 

V 

State of Rajasthan.

Dated:14.09.2016

MR. JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR VYAS

Citation: 2017 CRLJ(NOC)72 Raj

Print Page

What is distinction between 'public place' and ‘place within public view’?

The Division Bench has summed up the meaning
in following sentence :-
“therefore, the incidents of insult or intimidation
have to occur in place accessible to and in the
presence of public. The presence of both these
ingredients would be absolutely necessary to
constitute the offence.”

 Subsequent to the aforesaid decision, the Hon’ble
Apex Court gave meaning of the aforesaid ingredient in
the case reported as 2009 (2) Mh.L.J. 22 (Swaran Singh
v. State). The relevant portion of the decision is in
paragraph 28 and as under :-
“28. It has been alleged in the FIR that Vinod
Nagar, the first informant, was insulted by
appellants 2 and 3 (by calling him a “Chamar’)
when he stood near the car which was parked at
the gate of the premises. In our opinion, this was
certainly a place within public view, since the gate
of a house is certainly a place within public view. It
could have been a different matter had the alleged
offence been committed inside a building, and also
was not in the public view. However, if the offence
is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn
outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by
someone from the road or lane outside the
boundary wall, the lawn would certainly be a place
within the public view. Also even if the remark is
made inside a building, but some members of the
public are there (not merely relatives or friends)
then also it would be an offence since it is in the
public view. We must, therefore, not confuse the
expression ‘place within public view’ with the
expression ‘public place’. A place can be a private
place but yet within the public view. On the other
hand, a public place would ordinarily mean a place
which is owned or leased by the Government or the
municipality (or other local body) or gaon sabha or
an instrumentality of the Stage, and not by private
persons or private bodies.”
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Criminal Application No.2803 of 2011

 Bajirao s/o. Narayan Deshmukh.

V
The State of Maharashtra.

 CORAM: T.V. NALAWADE &
 Smt. I.K. JAIN, JJ.


 Order pronounced on : 6th April 2015.
Citation:2016 ALLMR(CRI)4557

Print Page

Whether district court premises is public place?

The occurrence place is the District Court Campus.  It is a public place.  The occurrence time is 11 a.m.  It is Court and office hours.  Many lawyers, litigants, vendors, trouble makers, sureties and accused will frequent.  By the act of the complaint, possibility of breach of public peace cannot be ruled out.  In such circumstances, there is  ground to proceed as against the respondent for an offence under Section 75(1)(c) of the Chennai City Police Act.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATE:  31.03.2016

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.DEVADASS

Criminal Revision Case No.224 of 2016

P.Mani vs. V.Ganeshkumar

Citation: 2016 CRLJ 4758 Mad

Print Page

When private place shall be treated as public place for purpose of grant of compensation under motor vehicle Act?

   As far as the provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

are concerned, we are of the view that the statute is framed with the

anxiety and the purpose to compensate the victims of accidents which

may occur in different circumstances.           According to us, while

considering the meaning of the term public place, a literal interpretation



will lead to anomalous results and will defeat the purpose.             A

purposive interpretation thus will have to be adopted. It is a matter of

common knowledge that in view of the increased spheres of activities

in daily life of people, the necessity to hire goods vehicles either to

transport household articles or the articles for use, merchandise, sand,

cement etc. as well as agricultural crops arise of and on. The purpose

of a goods vehicle will be to transport various items of goods. If the

words "public place" are interpreted in such a manner that the place

where accident occurred should be one where the place itself is

dedicated for the use of the public, it will go against the purpose of the

provision. The definition clause under Section 2(34) does not go to

that extent. In our view the decision of the Division Bench in United

India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Lakshmi (1997(1) KLT 449),

which was relied upon in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pierce

Leslie India Ltd. And others (2000(1) KLT 792) clearly went to the

extent of holding that a place will be a public place though it is a

private property when it is shown that the public are in the habit of


resorting to it and no one is prevented therefrom so resorting to it.

      28.   The idea given by the dictum laid down therein will

promote the object of the statute and if we adopt a narrow

interpretation it will defeat the intent and purport of the statute also.

According to us the Division Bench in United India Insurance Co.

Ltd. v. Pierce Leslie India Ltd. And others (2000(1) KLT 792 has

expressed in clear terms that the private premises or houses also could

be termed as a public place, where it is shown that public are in the

habit of resorting to it. It could not be taken that the travel of goods

vehicles can only be through the national highways or PWD roads or

such other public roads. Herein also, going by the evidence the vehicle

was actually heavily loaded with bundles of paddy crops . Evidently

after it was loaded from the paddy fields it was being taken through

public way which was situated nearby going by the mahazar, for

unloading in the courtyard, made ready for stocking it. The vehicle had

access to the place as held in Rajan's case ( supra) which is sufficient.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                              PRESENT:

         THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
                                 &
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH

       FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2015.

                     MACA.No. 1400 of 2008 ( )
                   

            PARUKUTTY, W/O. LATE SASIDHARAN NAIR,
       
                      Vs
           K.P.JOSEPH, S/O. PAILAN,
       KATTILAPPEDIKA HOUSE, MATTATHUR.

        Citation;2016(2)ALLMR(JOURNAL)90

Print Page

Whether open courtyard attached to private quarters of police constables is public place?

 Mr. Deo, the Public Prosecutor appearing for the State very vehemently argued that any member of public can go to such a place as it is open. However, it must be remembered that it is an open courtyard attached to the private quarters of police constables or police officers. It is only the officers or constables who are residing in those quarters can have access to the courtyard attached to such quarters. Any member of the public cannot as of right go to the courtyard. The inmates of the police quarters can very well exclude any member of the public from this place. In my view, therefore, the accused cannot be held guilty of the offence Under Section 85(1) on the allegation made by the prosecution itself. On this narrow ground, therefore, the accused is entitled to be acquitted,

Bombay High Court

Maruti Sakharam Aher vs The State Of Maharashtra on 1 September, 1977

Equivalent citations: 1978 CriLJ 67

Bench: Apte

Print Page