Patna High Court
PRAHLAD PASWAN @ PRAMODversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Holding
The appeal is dismissed; the order taking cognizance only under Section 504 IPC is upheld.
Summary
The appellant filed a complaint alleging assault, criminal intimidation, cheating, criminal breach of trust, attempt to murder and caste-based harassment under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, relating to a disputed piece of land. The Special Court took cognizance only of Section 504 IPC, rejecting the other IPC sections and the SC/ST provision. On appeal, the appellant argued that the caste‑based abuse was sufficient to attract the SC/ST Act, while the respondent contended that the abuse was not public and was merely part of a land dispute. The High Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents that an offence under the SC/ST Act requires a demonstrable intention to humiliate the victim, found no such intention in the evidence. Consequently, the Court upheld the lower court’s order of cognizance limited to Section 504 and dismissed the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether the alleged caste‑based abuse constitutes an offence under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act.
- Whether cognizance should have been taken under the other IPC sections (323, 341, 420, 406, 506) in addition to Section 504.
- Whether the abuse was made with the intention to humiliate the complainant as a member of a Scheduled Caste.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 341, 406, 420, 504, 506
- SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(1)(r)(s)
Subjects
- SC/ST Act
- caste discrimination
- land dispute
- IPC Section 504
- intention to humiliate
- criminal appeal
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2933 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-220 Year-2024 Thana- KATIHAR COMPLAINT CASE
District- Katihar
======================================================
PRAHLAD PASWAN @ PRAMOD SON OF LATE SITARAM PASWAN
R/O- GHUSKI, P.S.- BARARI, DISTT.- KATIHAR
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. VINOD CHAUHAN SON OF LATE SUKHNANDAN CHAUHAN R/O-
GHUSKI, P.S.- BARARI, DISTT.- KATIHAR
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sadanand Paswan
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
6 16-03-2026 1. The present appeal has been filed against the order
dated 27.5.2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-1 cum
Special Judge SC/ST Katihar in Complaint Case No. 220 of
2024 whereby learned Special Court has taken cognizance only
against section 504 of the IPC on the ground that prima facie
case of other sections i.e. 323, 341, 420, 406 and 506 of the IPC
and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act is
not made out.
2. The brief fact giving rise to the present appeal is
that the appellant filed a complaint case bearing CA No. 220 of
2024 on 31.01.2024 under section 323, 341, 420, 406, 506 of
the IPC and Section 3(i)(r)(s) of the SC/ST Prevention of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2933 of 2024(6) dt.16-03-2026
2/5
Atrocities Act against six named accused persons including
respondent No. 2 alleging therein that complainant was having
four decimals of land situated at Mouja Raunia, Khata No. 860,
Khesra No. 3575, for which basgit parcha was given in favour
of the complainant. A pakka house has been constructed by the
complainant on the land in question, in which the complainant is
residing with his family members.
3. On the date of occurrence, respondent no. 2 along
with other accused persons arrived, abusing in the name of his
caste name, told the complainant to vacate the land in question,
failing which he would be killed. The complainant was
examined on SA along with two inquiry witnesses.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
learned Special Court erred in not taking cognizance under other
Sections of IPC and the Section 3 (i)(r)(s) of the SC/ST
Prevention of Atrocities Act inasmuch as from perusal of the
statement of the complainant on SA as well as the statement of
the witnesses examined during inquiry, it would be evident that
the the complainant was abused by the accused persons,
including respondent No. 2, in his caste name. There was
sufficient material against the respondent No. 2 to take
cognizance under the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2933 of 2024(6) dt.16-03-2026
3/5
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondent No. 2 and the State argued that from perusal of the
order of cognizance, it would be evident that the learned Special
Court after considering the statement of the complainant on SA
and the statement of the witnesses have taken cognizance under
Section 504 of the IPC only. From the statement on SA and
statement of the witnesses, it is clear that the abuse by the caste
name was not taken in full public view and there was a dispute
regarding land between both the parties.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and
have gone through the materials available on record, including
the statement of the complainant on SA and the statement of the
witnesses annexed along with this appeal.
7. It appears that complainant is claiming the piece of
land, which is in dispute, as the land settled in his favour
through basgit parcha. The respondent no. 2 and others are
claiming the said land on the basis of the sale deed executed in
favor of wife of respondent no. 2. Prima facie, there appears to
be the land dispute between both the parties. From the record, it
appears that abuse by the caste name was not in full public view.
8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Hitesh
Verma v. State of Uttarakhand and another, reported in (2020)
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2933 of 2024(6) dt.16-03-2026
4/5
10 SCC 710 in paragraph 18, has came to the conclusion that
offence under the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act is not
established merely on the fact that the informant is a member of
Scheduled Caste unless there is an intention to humiliate a
member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for the reason
that the victim belongs to such caste.
9. In the present case, the allegation against
respondent no. 2 is that he along with others abused the
complainant and asked him to vacate the disputed land which
was purchased in favor of wife of respondent no. 2.
10. In an another judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Keshaw Mehto alias Keshaw Kumar Mehto v. State of Bihar
and another reported in 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 62, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held that ingredients of Section 3(1)(r)
cannot stand merely on the fact that the informant/complainant
is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, unless
the insult or intimidation is with the intention to humiliate such
a member of the community.
11. Neither in the complaint nor in the SA and/or
statement of the witnesses there is any whisper of an allegation
of insult or intimidation by the respondent no. 2 herein that the
abuse in the caste name was made with an intention to humiliate
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2933 of 2024(6) dt.16-03-2026
5/5
or denigrate the status of the complainant/appellant.
12. Considering the aforesaid discussions and the fact
that there is admitted land dispute between the parties, I do not
find any infirmity in the order taking cognizance by learned
Additional Sessions Judge-1 cum Special Judge SC/ST, Katihar.
13. In the result, the present appeal stands dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)
HarshPandey/-
U T
Checking your session…