Mumbai: A special court under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on Tuesday convicted a 32-year-old man and sentenced him to six months’ rigorous imprisonment for hurling casteist abuses at an advocate and making derogatory remarks against against Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar during an altercation a decade ago. A fine of Rs 10,000 was also imposed on the accused, Shakil Shaikh.“…the factum of using insulting language against the informant on the basis of his caste by the accused as well as making derogatory remarks against Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar on the…said date and time has been proved by the prosecution by adducing sufficient evidence,” special judge YP Manathkar said.The prosecution case was that on October 13, 2016, around 9pm, advocate Vinod Satpute parked his car near a building at RNA Colony, Vashinaka, Chembur, and was walking home when Shaikh hurled abuses at him by referring to him caste and also made derogatory remarks against Dr Ambedkar. The next day, Satpute lodged a complaint at RCF police station.Relying on Satpute’s caste certificate and verification records from the Pathardi sub-divisional office, the court accepted the prosecution’s case that Satpute belonged to a Scheduled Caste and Shaikh did not.The judge noted that Satpute and Shaikh were former neighbours and that Shaikh knew Satpute’s caste background as the latter’s family participated in Ambedkar Jayanti, Mahaparinirvan Din and Buddha Jayanti events.The court found that Satpute’s evidence was corroborated by the testimony of his brother Manoj. The court also relied on the testimony of Sunil Alam, who had witnessed Shaikh’s verbal quarrel with Satpute at the relevant time and place. “It clearly indicates that the area where the accused hurled casteist abuse against the informant was within public view… There was a pan shop, just 5ft away, and some motorcycles as well as a mini tempo were parked within 10ft from the spot,” the judge noted.Rejecting the defence argument that no independent public witness had fully supported the prosecution, the court held that the evidence on record was sufficient and convicted Shaikh under the relevant sections of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The court, however, found the evidence insufficient for the charges of voluntarily causing hurt and criminal intimidation.
