Patna High Court
BIPIN BIHARI SINGH @ BIPIN SINGH @ VIPIN SINGHversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Holding
Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act does not apply as there is no intention to humiliate the victim on caste grounds.
Summary
The appeal challenges the order of a Special Court that took cognizance of offences under the SC/ST Act against the appellants for allegedly assaulting the informant and using caste slurs during a land dispute. The court examined whether the alleged abuse was motivated by the victim's Scheduled Caste status, as required by Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act, citing Supreme Court precedents that demand a specific intent to humiliate on caste grounds. Finding no material evidence of such intent and noting that the dispute stemmed from a contested land possession, the court set aside the cognizance under the SC/ST Act. However, it held that the facts disclosed a prima facie case for the IPC offences of rioting, assault, and criminal intimidation, allowing the trial to proceed on those charges. Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed: the SC/ST charge was quashed while the IPC charges were upheld.
Issues considered
- Whether the alleged assault and verbal abuse constitute an offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
- Whether the intent behind the alleged abuse was to humiliate the victim on the basis of his Scheduled Caste status.
- Whether the cognizance taken under the Indian Penal Code offences can be sustained.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 107, 144, 188
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 188, 323, 324, 353, 504
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(1)(r)
Subjects
- SC/ST Act
- Caste discrimination
- Intent to humiliate
- Land dispute
- Assault
- Indian Penal Code
- Criminal cognizance
- Quashing of charge
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2980 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-11 Year-2020 Thana- CHAPRA MUFFASIL District- Saran
======================================================
1. BIPIN BIHARI SINGH @ BIPIN SINGH @ VIPIN SINGH S/o Late
Kapildev Singh R/o Village- Amar Chapra, P.S.- Chapra Muffasil, District-
Saran
2. Chandan Singh @ Chandan Kumar Singh S/o Bir Bahadur Singh Resident
of Village- Amar Chapra, P.S.- Chapra Muffasil, District- Saran
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Narayan Manjhi S/o Late Rajballabh Manjhi R/o Amar Chapra, P.S.-
Muffasil, District- Saran
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Krishna Kant Singh, Adv.
: Mr. Kundan Kumar, Adv.
: Mr. Shivesh Singh, Adv.
: Mr. Kumar Shaswat Anand, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. A.G.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
8 31-03-2026 1. The present appeal has been preferred against the
order dated 25.01.2022 passed in Chapra (M) P.S. Case No. 11
of 2020 by learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special
Judge, SC/ST Act, Saran, whereby the learned Court has taken
cognizance of offences against the appellants under Section 147,
323, 324, 504 and 353 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(r) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the SC/ST Act).
2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the informant
Narayan Manjhi gave his fardbeyan before the Police of Chapra
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2980 of 2022(8) dt.31-03-2026
2/8
Mufassil police station at Sadar Hospital, Chapra, stating that on
25.12.2019 at about 2 p.m., while he was at his home, the
appellants along with other accused persons came there with
lathi, danda and knife in their hands and abused him by taking
his caste name and started assaulting the informant. In the
meanwhile, appellant no. 2 gave knife blow causing injury near
the neck of the informant and when the informant's sister came
to save him, they torn her clothes and made her half-naked.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
upon bare perusal of the FIR, no offence, much less offence
under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act is made out. There is
admitted land dispute between the parties, which would be
evident from the FIR itself. Prior to lodging of the FIR,
proceeding under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. was initiated on the
basis of police report dated 27.10.2019 and the informant
violated the prohibitory order under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C.
for which the police recommended for initiation of proceeding
against the informant under Section 188 of the I.P.C. and
Section 107 of the Cr.P.C. in its report dated 29.11.2019.
4. It has further been argued that a Jamabandi
Cancellation Case No. 42 of 2019 was filed by the informant
without any notice to the appellants. The Jamabandi was
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2980 of 2022(8) dt.31-03-2026
3/8
cancelled by the A.D.M. The order cancelling their Jamabandi
was challenged by the appellants before this Court in C.W.J.C.
No. 20608 of 2019 in which the order cancelling Jama Bandi
was stayed. Subsequently, thereafter, the FIR has been lodged
by the informant. A title suit has also been filed by the
appellants against the informant having Title Suit No. 570 of
2019, which is still pending.
5. It has further been argued that the doctor who
treated the informant has found the nature of injury as simple,
caused by hard and blunt substance, whereas the allegation in
the FIR is that injury was inflicted by appellant no. 2 by a sharp
cutting weapon, i.e., knife. The learned Special Court has taken
cognizance in mechanical manner and without any material on
record to come to the conclusion that offence under section 3(1)
(r) is made out.
6. He relies upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand and another,
reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710 as well as Keshaw Mehto
alias Keshaw Kumar Mehto v. State of Bihar and another
reported in 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 62.
7. Mr. S.S.P. Yadav, learned counsel for the
respondent No. 2 and Mr. Sadanand Paswan for the State,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2980 of 2022(8) dt.31-03-2026
4/8
argued that it is correct that there is a land dispute between the
parties, but there is a specific allegation in the FIR that the
appellants abused the informant by his caste name due to land
dispute and also assaulted him. The doctors examined the
informant in the hospital, where the fardbeyan was recorded and
the injury has also been found on the person of the informant.
8. Mr. S.S.P. Yadav further submitted that it was the
appellants who wanted to forcibly take possession of the land in
question upon which the informant's side has been residing for
about 25 years. During course of investigation, the witnesses
have supported the prosecution story and more particularly in
para 7, 8 and 9 of case diary.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and
have gone through the materials available on record.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Keshaw Mehto
alias Keshaw Kumar Mehto v. State of Bihar and another
reported in 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 62, in para 12 and 16, has
dealt with Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) and has said that Section
3(1)(r) is attracted where the reason for the intentional insult or
intimidation by the accused is that the person who is subjected
to is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe.
Section 3(1)(r) cannot stand merely on the fact that the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2980 of 2022(8) dt.31-03-2026
5/8
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. The
fact that the informant belonged to the Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Tribe would not be enough. Any insult or
intimidation towards the complainant must be on account of
such person being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe
11. It has further been held by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court that with a view to dispel any doubt and lend clarity, it is
appropriate to mention that even mere knowledge of the fact
that the complainant is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe is not sufficient to attract Section 3(1)(r).
12. In the case of Hitesh Verma v. State of
Uttarakhand and another (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has held that offence under the SC/ST Act is not established
merely on the fact that informant is a member of SC (Scheduled
Caste) unless there is intention to humiliate the member of the
Scheduled Caste.
13. In paragraph 16 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has further observed that there is a dispute about
the possession of the land which is the subject-matter of civil
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2980 of 2022(8) dt.31-03-2026
6/8
dispute between the parties. Since the matter is regarding
possession of property pending before the civil court, any
dispute arising on account of possession of the said property
would not disclose an offence under the Act unless the victim is
abused, intimidated or harassed only for the reason that she
belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.
14. In the present case, the FIR starts with the fact that
due to previous land dispute, the appellants along with others
arrived and abused the informant by his caste name and
assaulted. The land dispute between the parties is admitted. Both
the parties are litigating over the title/possession of the land and
several cases including the title suit are pending between them.
The claim of the appellants is that the land in question belongs
to the appellants and a Jamabandi was created in their favor,
which was cancelled at the behest of the informant behind the
back of the appellants. As informed to this Court, the matter
regarding cancellation of Jama Bandi is still pending before the
Division Bench of this High Court. It appears that the intent
with which abuses were hurled as per the allegation was not
with an intention to humiliate the informant. The appellants did
not abuse the informant with the feeling of caste based
humiliation. The land dispute which is pending before the civil
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2980 of 2022(8) dt.31-03-2026
7/8
court arises on account of title and possession claimed by both
the parties upon the same land. Accordingly, this would not
disclose an offence under the SC/ST Act unless there is some
material to show that victim has been abused, intimidated only
for the reason that he belongs to the Scheduled Caste
community. From the records and attending circumstances, it do
not appear that the appellants abused the informant with
intention to humiliate or demean the dignity/status of the
informant.
15. Taking into consideration the aforesaid discussion,
this Court is of the opinion that there is no material to take
cognizance against the appellants under Section 3(1)(r) of the
SC/ST Act. Accordingly, the order taking cognizance against the
appellants for offense under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act
cannot sustain and is hereby set aside.
16. Insofar as cognizance taken against the appellants
under the I.P.C. is concerned, from the records as well as FIR
and the case diary, it appears that there is allegation against the
appellants that they assaulted the informant by lathi and knife
along with other accused persons. During course of
investigation, the informant was examined by the doctor also.
The nature of injury and the weapon used is not important at this
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2980 of 2022(8) dt.31-03-2026
8/8
stage.
17. In a case of Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand
and another (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 23
has referred a judgment rendered in Ishwar Pratap Singh v. State
of U.P. in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that there
is no prohibition under the law for quashing the charge-sheet in
part. During course of investigation, the victim along with other
witnesses have supported the prosecution story that the
informant was assaulted.
18. In view of the above facts and the materials on
record, this Court comes to the conclusion that the prima facie
case is made out against the appellants under the provisions of
I.P.C. and the appellants can be tried by the Competent Court for
the offences under I.P.C. in accordance with law.
19. The present appeal is partly allowed to the extent
indicated hereinabove.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)
HarshPandey/-
U T
Checking your session…