laid down that a public place “is a place where the public go,
no matter whether they have a right to go or not”, and this
definition has been accepted by subsequent judicial
decisions both in India and in England. A place in order to
be public, must, therefore, be open to the public i.e. a place
to which the public have access by right, permission, usage
or otherwise.
24. It is apparent from the evidence of aforesaid prosecution
witnesses that the alleged incident took place in school
office and the independent witnesses PW1 and PW-2 have
not supported the prosecution case & Vidyadhar Thethwar
(PW-8) has admitted that the appellant has also filed
complaint against him. Further, in para 13, PW-8 has
admitted that in the instant incident, an inquiry was also
conducted by the office and the same was done by Block
Education Officer Mr. Swarnkar. He has also admitted that
during inquiry, their statements were recorded by Mr.
Swarnkar. He does not know that what conclusion was
drawn by the Investigating Officer in the Departmental
Inquiry. He cannot tell that whether the conclusion was
given in the investigation that the incident he described did
not occur. In para 14, he has also admitted that complainant
tried to intervene the dispute in the office room and then the
alleged incident of uttering caste remark took place. The
incident which took place in office room was subsided later
and he (PW-8) went from there, thereafter, no incident was
taken place with him on the same day. He has also stated
that he has no knowledge whether complainant (PW-5)
lodged any report in Harijan Police Station on 2-3rd day of
the incident or not. Having noticed the above fact, it is clear
that the incident took place in the room of the school and as
per Section 294 of IPC, it is not a public place. The
independent witnesses have also not supported the case of
the prosecution. The prosecution has utterly failed to prove
its case beyond reasonable doubt. So, Section 294 of IPC is
also not made out against the appellant.