DELHI UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF LAW, LAW CENTRE II

LB 502: MOOT COURT EXERCISE- 2020-21

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

SLP NO __ /2020
(Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950)

In the matter of:

MOOL CHAND ... Appellant 1

(Appellant)

Versus

BAL DEV
(Respondent)

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 3(1)R & S OF SCHEDULED CASTES

AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATTROCITIES) ACT,1989

UPON THE SUBMISSION TO HONBLE SUPREME COURT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPEALLANT
Submitted to Submitted by
MISS SUMITI AHUJA MOHD DEEN
ROLL NO: 177593
SECTION: A
 LIST OF CONTENT
CONTENT PAGE NO
LIST OF REFERENCE AND CASES 3

LIST OF CASES REFERRED 4

LIST OF ABBREVATIONS 5

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 6

STATEMENT OF FACTS 7

STATEMENT OF ISSUES 8

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 9-11

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 12-17

PRAYER 18
 LIST OF REFERENCES

1) List of Statute

 The Constitution of India,1950

 The Schedule castes and Schedule tribe’s prevention of atrocities Act.

1989

 The Indian Evidence Act. 1872

 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948

2) List of Books Referred

 LAW OF CRIME-I, Case material (Faculty of Law),

 K.D. Gaur, Textbook on the Indian Penal Code, (Universal Law Publication
Company, 7th Edition, 2013),
 PSA Pillai Criminal Law, (lexis Nexis Butterworth Wadhwa Nagpur, 10th
edition, 2008).

2) List of websites Referred

 www.ssconline.com
 www.indiankanoon.org
 www.casemine.com
 www.legalcrystal.com
 www.advocatekhoj.com
 LIST OF CASES REFERRED

Sr.No Citations Pages

1. Prathvi raj chauhan vs Union of India & ors. writ petition 12

[c] no. 1015 of 2018
C.Sathiyanathan vs Veeramuthu on 14 November, 2008 in
2. Crl.O.P.No.23515 of 2006 13

3. In Boologha Pandian and Kandiah Pandian v. State 14

MANU/TN/0749/2003

4. In Taranath v. State of A.P. 1999(1) Crimes 188(A.P.) 14

5. K. Venugopal Reddy and Others v. The Deputy 16

Superintendent of Police and Others 2016 (1) ALT (Cri) 177
(A.P.)
6. E.Tirupem Reddy v. Deputy Superintendent of Police, 16
Nandyal 2006 Cr.Lj

In Prathvi raj chauhan vs U.O.I & ors.writ petition [c] no. 17

7. 1015 of 2018
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

S. No. ABBREVIATION FULL FORM

1. & And

2. A.I. R All India Reporter

3. Anr. Another

4. App. Appellate

5. Art. Article

6. CJ Chief Justice

7. Cl. Clause

8. Distt. District

9. Div. Division

10. Ed. Edition

11. Govt. Government

12. Hon’ble Honorable

13. ILR Indian Law Reports

14. IPC Indian Penal Code

15. Ltd. Limited

16. Misc. Miscellaneous

17. OR’s. Others

18. PIL Public Interest Litigation

 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The petitioner herein is Ms. Mool Chand. Under Article 136 of the Constitution
of India, 1950, this Hon’ble Court has been vested, in its discretion, to grant
special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or
order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the
territory of India.
The present memorandum set forth the facts, contentions and arguments in the
present case.

“ARTICLE 136. SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL BY THE SUPREME

COURT”

1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may,

in its discretion, grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree,
determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made
by any court or tribunal in the territory of India.

2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination,

sentence or order passed or made by any court or tribunal constituted by
or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.”
 STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. That, Mool Chand, petitioner herein was elected as a ward member of
ward no. 9 Rajpura town and was an elected member of an elected body
of a municipality and he belongs to Schedule Cast and the seat to which
he was elected reserved for Schedule Cast.
2. The Municipality was chaired by Baldev who belongs to general
category. On 04/12/2019 Baldev wanted to meet Mool chand to discuss
issues relating to cleanliness in ward no. 09. Therefore, on December
4, 2019 Baldev sent him a message through WhatsApp, inviting him for
personal meeting in his chamber at 11. AM. Mool chand was busy that
day and therefore he read the message at 11.30 AM. He immediately
called Baldev to inform him that he would reachshortly.
3. Upon this Baldev started shouting at Mool chand for getting late. He
made casteist remarks and humiliated him. At that time, a clerk was
also sitting in the chamber. Despite insult and humiliation, Mool chand
went to the Municipality to attend the meeting. As soon as he entered
into the chamber, Baldev got angry and abused him on the name of his
caste. He shouted at him saying. “Get lost from my office, otherwise I
will make you clean the streets”. At that time there was no third person
inside the chamber.
4. Mool chand left the chamber as Baldev was not listening to him. Mool
chand rushed to the police station to register an FIR against Baldev.
5. At the initial stage of the case trial court, found that prima facie had
been made out against Baldev. Therefore, on February 4, 2020, the
court framed charges under section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the scheduled
tribe (prevention of atrocities) Act. 1989.
6. Baldev challenged the order of framing of charges before Allahabad
High Court. The High Court held that casteist aspersions made
telephonically or in the absence of any third person did not constitute
the offence within the meaning of section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the
scheduled tribe (prevention of atrocities) Act. 1989.
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. That the allegations made against the respondent fall within the
provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 even if the telephonic call is not in a public view
given the fact that at the time of alleged telephonic call a third person
(clerk) was also present in the chamber.

2. Should the Scheduled Tribe (prevention of atrocities Act 1989) being

a penal statute which must be seriously construed and benefit of strict
interpretation is given to accused.

3. Whether the high court of Allahabad wrongly quashed the order Dated
February 4, 2020 February 4, 2020 February 4, 2020 dated of trial
court framing charges against the accused under section 3(1)(r) and
3(1)(s) of the scheduled tribe (Prevention of atrocities) Act. 1989.
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE NO.1: That the allegations made against the respondent fall within the
provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989 even if the telephonic call is not in a public view given the fact that at
the time of alleged telephonic
call a third person (clerk) was also present in the chamber.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the provisions in
the act are specifically applicable in the facts and circumstances in the present
case. When the petitioner was abused through telephonic call by the respondent
a third person was also present in his chamber hence the offence was committed
at a place that was in public view.

Moreover, the trial court while framing charges against the respondent had taken
into consideration the statement recorded under section 161Crpc. And that is an
admissible piece of evidence.

When the respondent made castiest remarks and humiliated the petitioner, at that
time, a clerk was also sitting in the chamber hence it cannot be considered as a
private place. Despite insult and humiliation, in front of the said clerk, Mool
chand went to the Municipality to attend the meeting. As soon as he entered into
the chamber, Respondent again got angry and abused petitioner on the name of
his caste. He shouted at him saying. “Get lost from my office, otherwise I will
make you clean the streets”. At that time there was no third person inside the
chamber.

The fact of the abusing in private or public place can only be best find out during
the trial and discharge of the respondent without a fair trial is unconstitutional
and ultra-virus. Therefore, the High court committed a gross error of judgment
by quashing the order passed by trial court framing charges against the respondent
under section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the scheduled tribe (prevention of atrocities)
Act. 1989.
At the stage of framing of charge only the prima facie evidence is to be considered
and deep appreciation of evidence is made only during the procedure of trial. As
per the circumstances and allegation raised by the petitioner it is evident that there
is enough prima facie material on record to frame charges against the respondent
under section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the scheduled tribe (prevention of atrocities)
Act. 1989.

ISSUE NO.2: Should the ScheduledTribe (prevention of atrocities) Act. 1989

being a penal statute which must be seriously construed and benefit of strict
interpretation is given to accused.

Every statute must be so interpreted as to give wider implications to its provisions

and the mind and intent of the legislatures must be taken into consideration. In
framing the Should the Scheduled Tribe (prevention of atrocities) Act. 1989 the
intention of the parliament must have been to better protect the Right and dignity
of the members of these classes.
“The makers of the Constitution were fully conscious of the unfortunate position
of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. To them equality, liberty and
fraternity are but a dream; an ideal guaranteed by the law, but far too distant to
reach; far too illusory to touch. These backward people and others in like
positions of helplessness are the favored children of the Constitution. It is for
them that ameliorative and remedial measures are adopted to achieve the end of
equality. To permit those who are not intended to be so specially protected to
compete for reservation is to dilute the protection and defeat the very
constitutional aim.”
The legislature has used the word ‘within public view’ under section 3
(s) of The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989 and section 3 (1) (r) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 instead of ‘public place’. The
intention of the legislature was to cover private places also if the offence under
this act is committed against the persons of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes.
The offence of intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a
member of Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view
means the public is able to witness the offence committed under this act. The
dictionary meaning of the word ‘'public’ ‘is ''open to the people as a whole''. The
dictionary meaning of the word ''view'' is vision or sight as from a particular
position. Reading these two meanings together in the context of the words ''public
view'', it only means that the public should have viewed the incident irrespective
of the place where the offence is committed, it may be private place or public
place.

ISSUE NO. 3: Whether the high court of Allahabad wrongly quashed the
order Dated February 4, 2020 February 4, of trial court framing charges against
the accused under section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the scheduled tribe (prevention
of atrocities) Act. 1989

In the present case, the petitioner belongs to the Schedule Cast and is an elected
representative in local self-Government bodies. He has been abused and casteist
remarks has been pronounce twice by the respondent. The dignity of the petitioner
has been destroyed in front of the clerk of his chamber and again he has been
insulted by the respondent in his own chamber. These two incidents while
considered as a chain of events established the quilt of the respondent beyond any
doubt.

When the respondent made casteist remarks and humiliated the petitioner, at that
time, a clerk was also sitting in the chamber hence it cannot be considered as a
private place. Despite insult and humiliation, in front of the said clerk, Mool
Chand went to the Municipality to attend the meeting. As soon as he entered into
the chamber, Respondent again got angry and abused petitioner on the name of
his caste. He shouted at him saying. “Get lost from my office, otherwise I will
make you clean the streets”. At that time there was no third person inside the
chamber.

At the stage of framing of charge only the prima facie evidence is to be considered
and deep appreciation of evidence is made only during the procedure of trial. As
per the circumstances and allegation raised by the petitioner it is evident that there
is enough prima facie material on record to frame charges against the respondent
under section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the scheduled tribe (prevention of atrocities)
Act. 1989.
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE NO. 1: That the allegations made against the respondent fall within the
provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989 even if the telephonic call is not in a public view given the fact that at
the time of alleged telephonic call a third person (clerk) was also present in the
chamber.

In Prathvi raj Chauhan vs U.O.I & ors.writ petition [c] no. 1015 of 2018

Supreme court has observed that as a matter of fact, members of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes have suffered for long, hence, if we cannot provide
them protective discrimination beneficial to them, we cannot place them at all at
a disadvantageous position that may be causing injury to them by widening
inequality and against the very spirit of our Constitution. It would be against the
basic human dignity to treat all of them as a liar or as a crook person and cannot
look at every complaint by such complainant with a doubt.
Eyewitnesses do not come up to speak in their favor. They hardly muster the
courage to speak against upper caste, that is why provisions have been made by
way of amendment for the protection of witnesses and rehabilitation of victims.
All humans are equal including in their failings. To treat SCs. and STs. as persons
who are prone to lodge false reports under the provisions of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act for taking revenge or otherwise as monetary
benefits made available to them in the case of their being subjected to such
offence, would be against fundamental human equality. It cannot be presumed
that a person of such class would inflict injury upon himself and would lodge a
false report only to secure monetary benefits or to take revenge. If presumed so,
it would mean adding insult to injury, merely by the fact that person may misuse
provisions cannot be a ground to treat class with doubt. It is due to human failings,
not due to the caste factor. The monetary benefits are provided in the cases of an
acid attack, sexual harassment of SC/ST women, rape, murder, etc. In such cases,
FIR is required to be registered promptly.
I n C.Sathiyanathan vs Veeramuthu on 14 November, 2008

Madras High Court has held that an offence committed under the provisions of
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of atrocities) Act, 1989
can very well be taken cognizance of by a Magistrate on a private complaint and
that hence the challenge made to the order of the Magistrate on the ground that
a private complaint alleging commission of offences punishable under the
provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
atrocities) Act, 1989 is incompetent, cannot be sustained. On the other hand, this
court has also held supra, that there is total non-application of mind on the part
of the learned Judicial Magistrate taking cognizance of the case. This court has
clearly pointed out how the Magistrate has mechanically taken a case on file
without even applying his mind to find out whether the allegations made in the
complaint (of course without going into the question of the correctness or
otherwise of the same) would attract any one of the penal provisions and if so,
what exactly the penal provision or provisions under which the act or acts on the
part of the petitioner herein would amount to an offence. This court has also
pointed out that it is not obligatory on the part of the complainant to mention the
penal provision and that even if the complainant has quoted a wrong penal
provision, the Magistrate has to take cognizance of the offence citing the correct
penal provision. In this case, it has also been pointed out that the provisions
mistakenly quoted by the complainant been mechanically incorporated by the
learned Judicial Magistrate in the order taking cognizance of the case. For that
reason alone, the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate dated 16.06.2006 has
got to be quashed. However, this court has to consider whether complete justice
can be rendered by simply.

ISSUE NO. 2: Should the Scheduled Tribe (prevention of atrocities) Act. 1989
being a penal statute which must be seriously construed and benefit of strict
interpretation is given to accused.
In Boologha Pandian and Kandiah Pandian v. State MANU/TN/0749/2003
Madras High Court observed that the judiciary on many occasions considered the
offence within the public view and sometimes not in public view. The words used
in sub section (s) are not ‘in public place’ but ‘within public view’ which means
the public must view the person being insulted for which he must be present and
no offence on the allegations under the said section gets attracted. The entire
allegations contained in the complaint even if taken to be true do not make out
any offence against the petitioner Accused intentionally insulted or intimidated
complainant and caused aspersion in public place calling his caste name as
scheduled caste citizen. Place of occurrence was within public view. Prosecution
proved case beyond reasonable doubt; it was held no infirmity in Order passed
by Court.
In Taranath v. State of A.P. 1999(1) Crimes 188(A.P.)
The main ingredient of Section 3(1) (s) of the act is insults or intimidates with
intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any
place ‘within public view’. The offence must be committed against the member
of the scheduled caste or scheduled tribe by the person who is not a member of
Scheduled caste or scheduled tribes ‘within public view’. If any offence is
committed by the member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes against the
member of Schedule Castes or Scheduled Tribes, then the provisions of this act
will not attract. In case, petitioner/accused belongs to Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribe they are not punishable under section 3 of Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, as the provisions does not attract
itself [1]. The provision of Section 3(l) (s) of the Act does not use the expression
"public place", but instead the expression used is "in any place within public
view". There is a clear distinction between the two expressions. If a private place,
such as the courtyard of a residential house, can be seen by someone from road
or lane outside the boundary wall, and if the incident occurred at such a place is
audible and visible to the people, it would, indubitably constitute an offence under
section 3(1) (s) of the Act, it being a place within public view. In other words, a
place of offence can be a private place, but if the remarks made, with intent to
humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, are audible and/or
if members of public have viewed the incident, even if the incident occurred at a
private place, such as the courtyard of a house, in my opinion, it would constitute
an offence under section 3(1)(s) of the Act. It is evident from the Statement of
Objects and Reasons of the Act that it was enacted to prevent indignities,
humiliation and harassment to the members of SC/ST community. Therefore,
while interpreting the expression "in any place within public view", one will have
to hold that occurrence of the incident was viewed by the public. The expression
“within public view" will have to be read to mean that the offence under section
3(1)(s) of the Act, should take place in view of the "public". If no member of the
public has either seen the incident or heard the remarks, then even if the place is
a "public place" or a place "visible to the public", it would not attract the
ingredients of the offence under section 3(1)(s) of the Act [2].

K. Venugopal Reddy and Others v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police

and Others 2016 (1) ALT (Cri) 177 (A.P.)
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe intentionally insults or intimidates with
intent to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe in any
place within public view. It cannot make out the offence punishable under Section
3(1)(s) of the Act, as simply addressing a person by his caste
without any intention to insult or intimidate in public view [3]. In order to launch
prosecution under Section 3(1)(s) of Act, two necessary and indispensable
ingredients must exist - Victim should belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled
Tribe and there must be humiliation of such person in public view

ISSUE NO. 3: Weather the high court of Allahabad wrongly quashed the order
Dated February 4, 2020 February 4, 2020 February 4, 2020 dated of trial court
framing charges against the accused under section 3(1)(r) and 3 (1)(s) of the
scheduled tribe (prevention of atrocities) Act. 1989.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the provisions in
the act are specifically applicable in the facts and circumstances in the present
case. When the petitioner was abused through telephonic call by the respondent
a third person was also present in his chamber hence the offence was committed
at a place that was in public view.
Moreover, the trial court while framing charges against the respondent had taken
into consideration the statement recorded under section 161 Crpc. And that is an
admissible piece of evidence.
Irupem Reddy v. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nandyal 2006 Cr.Lj
Whether the words were uttered in a public view or not is a question of fact which
will have to be decided during the trial the fact of the abusing in private or public
place can only be best find out during the trial and discharge of the respondent
without a fair trial is unconstitutional and ultra-vires. Therefore, the High court
committed a gross error of judgment by quashing the order passed by trial court
framing charges against the respondent under section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the
scheduled tribe (prevention of atrocities) Act. 1989.

At the stage of framing of charge only the prima facie evidence is to be considered
and deep appreciation of evidence is made only during the procedure of trial. As
per the circumstances and allegation raised by the petitioner it is evident that there
is enough prima facie material on record to frame charges against the respondent
under section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the scheduled tribe (prevention of atrocities)
Act. 1989.

In Prathvi raj chauhan vs U.O.I & ors.writ petition [c] no. 1015 of 2018

Supreme court has observed that as a matter of fact, members of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes have suffered for long, hence, if we cannot provide
them protective discrimination beneficial to them, we cannot place them at all at
a disadvantageous position that may be causing injury to them by widening
inequality and against the very spirit of our Constitution. It would be against the
basic human dignity to treat all of them as a liar or as a crook person and cannot
look at every complaint by such complainant with a doubt.
Eyewitnesses do not come up to speak in their favor. They hardly muster the
courage to speak against upper caste, that is why provisions have been made by
way of amendment for the protection of witnesses and rehabilitation of victims.
All humans are equal including in their failings. To treat SCs. and STs. as persons
who are prone to lodge false reports under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes Act for taking revenge or otherwise as monetary benefits
made available to them in the case of their being subjected to such offence, would
be against fundamental human equality. It cannot be presumed that a person of
such class would inflict injury upon himself and would lodge a false report only
to secure monetary benefits or to take revenge. If presumed so, it would mean
adding insult to injury, merely by the fact that person may misuse provisions
cannot be a ground to treat class with doubt. It is due to human failings, not due
to the caste factor. The monetary benefits are provided in the cases of an acid
attack, sexual harassment of SC/ST women, rape, murder, etc. In such cases, FIR
is required to be registered promptly.
Even though the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 is very
wide, it has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when
such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself.
It is to be exercised Exebio justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the
administration of which alone, courts exist. This view has been taken by the
Hon’ble SC in many of its judgments including the recent Monica Kumar v. State
of Uttar Pradesh.

In a proceeding under section 482, the High Court will not enter into any finding
of facts, particularly when the matter has been concluded by concurrent finding
of facts of two courts below.

Conclusion
In Moolchand vs Baldev the respondent was fully aware of the caste status of
the plaintiff and hence intentionally made casteist remarks to humiliate the
plaintiff over the phone call in the presence of a third party which happened to
be the clerk in the chamber during the phone call and again in his chamber
constituting it as an offence under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(x) of SC/ST
(Prevention) of Atrocities Act 1989 punishable with a sentence between 6
months to 5 years with fine
 PRAYER

Whereof in the light of facts and circumstances of the instant

case, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the Plaintiffs
most respectfully pray that Hon’ble Supreme Court may
kindly adjudge and declare: -

That the present application is maintainable. And

this comes under public view.
And pass any other order, direction, or relief that this
Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interests of justice,
equity and good conscience.

And for this act of kindness the PLAINTIFF’S shall as in duty

bound forever pray.