BENGALURU: Causing mere scratch marks cannot become an offence under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the high court observed in a recent judgment, while quashing a criminal case against a resident of Puttur taluk in Dakshina Kannada district.
“For an offence punishable under section 323 IPC, hurt should be caused in the squabble. A perusal of the wound certificate shows a simple scratch mark was caused on the forearm and another on the chest. Bleeding is not what is indicated,” justice M Nagaprasanna noted in his order, while allowing the petition filed by Rithesh Pais. Section 323 prescribes punishment for causing hurt.
Regarding invocation of sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015, the judge pointed out that abuses attributed to the petitioner were hurled in the basement of a building and as it’s not a place of public view, it does not attract the Act’s provisions.
The judge added that there is no indication regarding the presence of any person other than the six witnesses who were working there, who were either employees of the building owner against whom the petitioner had filed a suit or friends of the complainant.
With regard to invoking sections 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of IPC, the judge said they are just an offshoot of invocation of the Atrocities Act.
Pais had challenged the proceedings pending before the 5th additional district and sessions judge, Dakshina Kannada, arising out of a crime registered by Puttur town police for offences punishable under sections 504, 323 and 506 of IPC and the Atrocities Act.
The case of the prosecution is that around 10.30am on October 2, 2020, complainant Mohan was working in a newly constructed building belonging to Jayakumar R Nair at Yelmudi village and the petitioner (Pais) came there and told Mohan to stop the work.
It is alleged that when the complainant replied that he was working on the building owner’s instructions, in front of five other witnesses, Pais addressed him (the complainant) by taking the name of his caste, issued life threats and obstructed construction activity.
Vengeance alleged
However, in his petition, Pais claimed the complainant is an employee under Jayakumar, against whom he has instituted a civil suit and an order of injunction is operating against him. According to him, Jayakumar set up his employee to settle his personal scores or wreak vengeance for instituting the suit.
