PANAJI
The Bombay High Court at Goa has upheld the discharge of Mandur Sarpanch Ajit Bakal of making ‘casteist’ comments against anti-Planning and Development Authority (PDA) activists Rama Kankonkar back in 2018.
Besides being booked under sections of the IPC, Bakal was also charged with offences under the Scheduled Castes Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989.
However, the Court found that the addition of sections under the Act was an “afterthought” especially since, when the complaint was first filed there was no such mention of any such utterances under the Act.
”The aforesaid material placed along with the chargesheet clearly indicates that the allegations pertaining to caste based abusive language allegedly used by the respondent was an afterthought and an attempt to rake up offences under the Act of 1989. A reference to the consultation with the Advocate and alleged ignorance of the Act of 1989 being the reason for not giving such information to the police at the first instance is indicative of the manner in which the victim in the instant case has sought to rake up the offences under the Act, 1989, whereas in the first instance such allegation was not made,” the High Court single bench of Justice Manish Pitale, said.
“If the incident had occurred in the manner in which the victim and the alleged eyewitnesses in their supplementary statements claimed to have occurred, such crucial information regarding abusive language on the basis of caste used by the respondent would have been stated in the very initial statements recorded by the police. Therefore, the Court of the Special Judge is justified in concluding that the entire allegations pertaining to the Act of 1989 appeared to be an afterthought and an attempt to frame the respondent for offences under the said Act,” the Court said.
“Although the Court is not supposed to hold a mini trial at this stage, what is to be examined is as to whether the material placed on record along with the chargesheet discloses a grave suspicion against the accused person and whether such grave suspicion would justify framing of charges against the accused person,” the High Court said.
According to the informant/ victim an incident occurred at about 1:30 am on 04/06/2018, wherein Bakal allegedly threatened the informant/ victim and assaulted him with fists and blows. The statements of two eyewitnesses also described the incident in identical terms and there is reference only to assault on the victim by fists and blows.
On this basis, offences were registered against the respondent under Sections 504, 323, 427 and 506(ii) of the IPC.
