A principal supervisor and two others who were booked for allegedly abusing an assistant teacher with casteist words in 2012 were acquitted by a special court, terming the evidence as 'vague' and 'ambiguous'.
The complaint was made by a teacher who had been working at the school since 2000 as an assistant teacher, teaching English and Social Studies. She had complained that the women accused, from the year 2010 until the FIR was lodged in 2013, kept abusing and insulting her regarding her caste on a regular basis and used abusive, casteist and insulting words to abuse her.
She stated that in December 2012 during a teachers' meeting, the principal mentioned to her that the complainant, a Scheduled Caste member, had joined only because of reservation and was not suitable for the job. The complainant stated that the supervisor had mocked these remarks. The principal once more in March 2013 went into a class where the complainant was conducting a class and insulted her using derogatory casteist terms.
In her FIR, the complainant had also provided examples of abuse from the principal and had lodged a complaint under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)Act, 1989. The complainant had also claimed two other employees deputing at the school had also humiliated her before other teachers.
The defense lawyer asserted that the school administration had sent notices to the complainant as her behavior while working there was not 'appropriate. He had further contended that to term something an offence under the Act by suggesting that a person has got a job due to their caste cannot be termed an offence under the Act.
The court held this argument of the accused to be true."The aforementioned alleged derogatory words also fall short specifically clearly falling under the definition of insult and humiliation, merely with specific ill-intention to perpetrate the impugned crime," the court held.
The court added that although the complainant had mentioned that she was subjected to the insults from the year 2010, she hadn't approached any authority until 2013. "It has to be weighed that the complainant has not made any complaint/objections before any police authority, district magistrate or anybody else. But she simply raised and directly raised the written complaint before the SC/ST commission. In such context, she has not given any substantial explanation," the court observed in its order on May 8, questioning the delay in the FIR. It also stated that the statement made by the complainant finds no corroboration from other evidence. It also stated that the prosecution had failed to make any efforts to comply with verification of the caste certificate of the complainant.
