Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 896 (MP)

Hukum Singh v. State of M. P.

2003-07-25

S.K.SETH

body2003
JUDGMENT Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction delivered by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, (Special Judge) Mandsaur in Special Case No. 114/91 this appeal has been preferred by the appellants. Appellants were put up for trial for having committed offence punishable under S. 3(2)(iii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as Act for short). The appellants have been convicted and sentenced to undergo six months' RI and each appellant was also sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default to undergo two months' S.I. Trial Court also awarded Rs. 6,000/as compensation to the complainant Onkar under S. 357 of the CrPC. During the pendency of appeal, appellant No. 3 Dungarsingh s/o Nirhhaysingh died. Thus, appeal so far as Appellant No.3 Dungarsingh is concerned it stands abated. The facts in brief which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as under: It is alleged that on 5.9.1991 appellants let loose their cattles in the field of complainant Onkar and when that was objected to by the wife of the complainant Bhagatbai, the appellants set fire to open hut. The appellants are also alleged to have given beating to Bhagatbai and on hearing hue and cry Bhawarbai came and rescued Bhagatbai. The husband of Bhagatbai was not in village and upon his return the incident was narrated to him by Bhagatbai. As a result on 6.9.1991 FIR was lodged by Onkar husband of Bhagatbai at P.S. Suwasra. After completing the investigation the police filed challan for offences punishable under Ss. 440 and 435 of IPC r/w S. 3 (2) and 3(2)(iii) of the Act against the appellants. On the basis of chal1an learned Sessions Judge framed charges against the appellants only for having committed offence punishable under S. 3(2)(iii) of the Act. No charge for having committed any offence punishable under IPC was framed against the accused persons. To prove the offence which the appellants are alleged to have committed, the prosecution examined seven witnesses. PW 1 Onkar, is the husband of Bhagatbai. According to this witness the crops were standing on the encroached Government land. This witness in this evidence has stated that Bhagatbai told him only about the damaged crop when he returned in the evening from another village. Significantly this witness does not say anything about the causing fire or beating given to Bhagatbai. According to this witness the crops were standing on the encroached Government land. This witness in this evidence has stated that Bhagatbai told him only about the damaged crop when he returned in the evening from another village. Significantly this witness does not say anything about the causing fire or beating given to Bhagatbai. PW 2 Bhagatbai is the witness who says that in the morning she was in the house when her sons Shyam and Arjun came and informed her that the appellants are causing damage to their crops by leaving their cattles in the field. On getting this piece of information, she alone went to the field leaving behind her sons at the hut. According to this witness when she reached the spot the cattles had already damaged the crops. Without any provacation she was given beatings. According to this witness, the appellants had set fire to open hut. She does not say that the appellants tried to throw her in to the burning hut. PW 3 Shyam is the major son of complainant Onkar and Bhagatbai PW 2. According to this witness he was present on the spot at the time of incident. This is in direct contradiction with the evidence of PW 2 Bhagatbai. Assuming for a moment that PW 3 was also present on the spot then it is highly unnatural for a son not to come forward to protect his mother when she was alleged to have been beaten by the appel1ants and when appellants tried to push her into the burning hut. No man worth has salt would tolerate this kind of behaviour with his own mother. Another witness who has been examined by the prosecution is Bhawarbai PW 4 and Bhagga PW 5. According to PW 4 the cattles had damaged the standing crops at the time when Government officials like Tahsildar, Patwari and Village Patel were present at the spot. PW 1 Onkar had admitted in his deposition that Government officials did visit the village to remove the encroachment and in the process the crops got damaged. From the evidence of PW 4 it clearly emerges that the crops got damaged while removing the encroachment. In view of this clear cut evidence on record it becomes very doubtful whether the appellants committed offence punishable under S. 3(2) of the Act. From the evidence of PW 4 it clearly emerges that the crops got damaged while removing the encroachment. In view of this clear cut evidence on record it becomes very doubtful whether the appellants committed offence punishable under S. 3(2) of the Act. The possibility of false implication of the appellants cannot be ruled out. In view of the inherent weakness in the prosecution evidence, I find that the conviction of the appellants cannot be sustained and accordingly the same is hereby set aside. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. The appellants are acquitted of the charge levelled against them. The fine, if any, deposited by the appellants, if not disbursed to the complainant, be refunded to the appellants. Bail bonds furnished by them and surety are hereby discharged.