BHASKAR SARJERAO SHIRSATHversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:38465




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD


                                   Criminal Appeal No. 686 of 2024

           Bhaskar S/o Sarjerao Shirsath

                 Versus

           1. State of Maharashtra
           2. Sitaram S/o Shripati Karanje

           Mr. A. L. Kanade, Advocate for the Appellant (original complaint)
           Mr. S. B. Narwade, APP for the Respondent/State
           Mr. N. B. Patekar, Advocate for Respondent No. 2 (original Accused)


                                                     CORAM       : R. M. JOSHI, J.
                                                     DATED       : 21th AUGUST, 2026

           PER COURT :-

           1.    This appeal filed under Section 14A of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe

           (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 takes exception to the order dated 14/03/2024

           passed in Special Case No. 733 of 2020 by Additional Session Judge, Ahmednagar

           whereby present Respondent No. 2 came to be discharged for the offences

           punishable under Sections 3(1)(r)(s) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes

           (Prevention of Atrocity) Act.



           2. In short, it is the case of the prosecution that the present applicant/original

           informant-Bhaskar Sarjerao Shirsath, belonging to the 'Hindu Mang' community


                                                                                       1 of 8
which is categorised as Scheduled Caste. He earns his livelihood through masonry

work and daily wage labor. The accused persons i.e. Respondent No.2 is the Original

accused-Sitaram Shreepat Karanje who is the owner of fair price shop and Kadubal

Dada Bhumkar works as a grain distributor in Respondent No.2’s shop belong to the

Maratha community. On 27/09/2020 at about 07:30 AM, the Applicant/informant

accompanied along with his mother came to the fair price shop to collect their

monthly ration. When the present Applicant/informant requested Kadubal to

distribute grain expeditiously so he could leave for work, accused Kadubal insulted

him and hurled caste-based slurs, addressing him as "Mangtya". After the informant

and his mother provided their thumb impressions, the accused handed over 30 kg of

rice and directed them to return later for the remaining 50 kg quota of grain.

Thereafter, when the Applicant/informant sent his son, Ashish, to fetch the balance

grain, the accused insisted that the Applicant/informant daughter be brought to give

a thumb impression. After some time the present Applicant/informant accompanied

his son back to the shop of Respondent No.2 to inquire about the alleged comment

on his daughter. Upon questioning, Respondent No.2/Original accused grabbed the

Applicant/informant by his collar and intentionally insulted him in the presence of

witnesses who are residents of the same village by uttering casteist slurs, saying

"Mangtya, what can you possibly do?". Frightened and humiliated by the physical

assault and public insult, the informant left without taking the remaining grain.

Subsequently, crime was lodged by the present Applicant/Informant, and



                                                                              2 of 8
chargesheet was filed, supplementary statements of witnesses came to be recorded,

so also their statements under section 164.



3.     Learned Counsel for the Applicant/Original Informant submits that this is a

case wherein offences are made on prima facie perusal of Record, so also version

narrated in the FIR and Chargesheet corroborates with the statement of independent

witnesses recorded. To support the above contention, he drew the attention of the

court to statements of witnesses recorded under section 161 as well as under section

164 of CRPC to show that casteist abuses/slurs were hurled and he was humiliated

in public View. It's further argued that the Learned Special Court has committed an

error in appreciating statement of present Applicant/informant discharging the

Respondent No. 2 on erroneous/incorrect observations that offence is not made out

when there are specific overt allegations attributed to the Respondent No. 2 of he

hurling casteist slurs and humiliating the Present Applicant/informant publically. It's

further contended that an FIR was belatedly registered by the wife of the

Respondent No.2 by way of counterblast to pressurize the present Applicants. To

support the above submission, reliance is placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble

Supreme Court in case of HITESH VERMA vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND

ANOTHER reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710.



4.     The Learned APP supports the case of Appellant.



                                                                                 3 of 8
5.       Learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 opposed the grant of any relief to the

present Applicant. He contends that from the bare perusal of the investigation

papers it's evident that offence is not made out, so also the statement of the

witnesses recorded cannot be relied upon as they are not independent witnesses and

they are acquainted with present Applicant. To substantiate the above submissions,

the attention of the court is drawn to order impugned dated 14/03/2023 to show

that an FIR was belatedly registered by wife of Respondent No.2, so also it is rightly

observed by the Special Judge about offence being not made out which indicates

that statement of witnesses are unreliable, omnibus and Vague.



6.       At the outset, it needs to be recorded that the Learned Special Court passed

Order impugned discharging present Respondent No.2/Original Accused on the

premise that in the statement recorded under section 164 of CrPC, there are no

allegations with regards to abuses over caste. This finding however is contrary to the

said Statement. A bare perusal of it shows presence of statement indicating cast

abuse.



7.       There is no dispute about the fact that the investigation into the crime is

concluded with the filing of the chargesheet. Perusal of prima facie evidence on

record shows that the present Applicant/informant along with his mother went to



                                                                                4 of 8
collect grains from the ration shop of Respondent No.2., where he was abused on his

caste and was directed to collect remains grains later that day. Thereafter, when the

present Applicant along with his son came to inquire about offensive comment made

on his daughter, it is specifically alleged that Respondent No.2. assaulted the

Applicant/informant in front of villagers by grabbing his collar/scruff and

subsequently hurling casteist abuses by calling him “ Mangtya, what can you possibly

do?” which shows the complicity of the Respondent No.2. in the present crime about

he assaulting and hurling casteist slurs in “Public View”.



8.       At this stage, in order to appreciate above observations, reference can be

made to the Judgement relied on by the Applicant of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of

HITESH VERMA (Supra) wherein elements to constitute an offence under section

3(1)(r) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is interpreted and elucidated as

under:

         “     14. Another key ingredient of the provision is insult or intimidation in

         "any place within public view". What is to be regarded as "place in public

         view" had come up for consideration before this Court in the judgment

         reported as Swaran Singh v. State. The Court had drawn distinction between

         the expression "public place" and "in any place within public view". It was

         held that if an 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



                                                                                 5 of 8
outside the boundary wall, then the lawn would certainly be a place within

the public view. On the contrary, if the remark is made inside a building, but

some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then it

would not be an offence since it is not in the public view (sic)". The Court

held as under: (SCC pp. 443-44, para 28)



      "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



                                                                         6 of 8
              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 State, and not by private persons or

              private bodies." ”

                                                         (emphasis in original)



9.     With regards to the statement of Witnesses, the perusal of same indicates that

the Applicant/informant was assaulted by the present Respondent No.2 and casteist

slurs were being hurled at present Applicant in their presence. This corroborates the

version of Victim/Informant and his statement recorded under 164 of CrPC. At this

stage genuinity of statement of these witnesses cannot be considered as it will be

subject matter to be substantiated in the course of trial.



10.    In so far as the impugned order of discharge dated 14/03/2023 passed by

Special Court discharging the accused for want of allegations with regards to abuses

over caste is concerned, the record clearly indicates assault caused and casteist

abuse being hurled by Respondent No.2 on the present Applicant. The learned

Special Judge has, prima facie, committed error in not considering the alleged

utterances made by respondent No.2 against the Applicant/informant to be abused

over the caste in the order impugned.



                                                                                  7 of 8
11.      In view of the above discussion and on Perusal of the charge-sheet, so also the

evidence collected during the course of investigation, prima facie offence alleged is

made out against Respondent No.2. As such, the order impugned cannot be

sustained and deserves to be set aside.



12.      The Appeal is allowed in terms of prayer clause “B”.



13.      The above observations are prima facie in nature and shall not prejudice the

parties during the course of trial.

                                                      ( R. M. JOSHI, J.)



Malani




                                                                                  8 of 8