Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 586 (MP)

Shankar Singh v. State of M. P.

2005-05-04

RAKESH SAKSENA

body2005
JUDGMENT This appeal is directed against the judgment passed by Special Judge Vidisha in Special Case No. 221/1997 on 5/3/1998 whereby the accused appellant has been convicted under section 3 (1) (10) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 100/- (Rs. Hundred only). According to prosecution on 29.8.1997 complainant Munalal after milking his cow had kept the milk in the varanda of his house which was drunk by the dog of accused persons. Being annoyed complainant hit the dog by Danda. Somebody told the accused person that complainant had killed the dog, they rushed armed with Farsa and reached in front of the house of the complainant and started abusing him. On being objected by the wife of complainant accused persons namely Shankar Singh and Devi Singh abused her also and said that "Chamaria wali tere dimag kharab ho gaye hai, tere aadami ne kutte ko kaise mara, bahar nikal". The complainant out of fear did not come out from his house. Witness Roop Singh and Jagat Singh reached at the spot and intervened whereupon the accused persons went away. The complainant lodged the report on 31.8.1997 at P.S. Pathari Ex. P-1. The case being of the jurisdiction of A.J.K. Vidisha, it was transferred to it for further investigation. After investigation charge-sheet was filed and case was put up for trial. The learned Court framed the charges under section 3 (1) (10) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Accused persons abjured guilt and pleaded false implication due to enmity. The prosecution produced six witnesses to prove its case. The complainant Munnalal PW 1 deposed before the Court that as the dog belonging to accused persons had drunk his milk kept in the varanda therefore, he had hit the dog. On hearing it accused persons came to his house and started abusing him. Both the accused had wielded Katama. They had intimidated that if he went to lodge report, he will be killed and when his wife tried to intervene they abused her and said ''Chamaria ke bhav bad gaye hai". PW 2 Jagat Singh who happened to be the nephew of complainant said that the accused persons were standing at Varanda and were abusing Munnalal. He has simply said that the accused hurled abused. PW 2 Jagat Singh who happened to be the nephew of complainant said that the accused persons were standing at Varanda and were abusing Munnalal. He has simply said that the accused hurled abused. This witness did not say that the accused referred to caste of the complainant. PW 4 Kunwar Singh did not support the prosecution. PW 5 Geetabai the wife of the complainant said that the incident occurred when her husband had hit the dog of accused persons when it had drunk their milk kept in the varanda. She said that the accused persons came with Farsa and Katama and asked them as to why they had hit the dog. They said that they will beat them too as they had beaten their dog. She said that out of fear they concealed themselves inside the house. Accused persons hurled abused and said that Chamaria Randi apne aadmi ko bahar nikal. The learned trial Court after discussing the evidence found accused appellants guilty as referred earlier and convicted and sentenced them. The learned counsel for the appellants Shri Sanjay Gupta vehemently argued that the offence under section 3 (1) (10) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not made out at all Learned counsel submitted that the evidence of witnesses in regard to actual words said to have been uttered by the accused persons is discrepant. He also submitted that no offence under section 3 (1) (10) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out as the proof of requisite intention which is an essential ingredient of the offence is lacking in the, prosecution evidence. He argued that marely utterance of 'word' 'Chamar or Chamaria' which is the caste of the complainant, is not enough to attract the offence under section 3 (1) (10) of the Act because there is no nexus between the utterance of the word and the intention to insult or humiliate the complainant because of his belonging to scheduled caste. It was further contended that from the evidence on record it was evident that incident had occurred because the complainant had hit the dog of the accused persons and somebody had informed them that the dog had been killed by him. It was further contended that from the evidence on record it was evident that incident had occurred because the complainant had hit the dog of the accused persons and somebody had informed them that the dog had been killed by him. Therefore, if under enraged state of mind word Chamar or Chamaria were uttered, it did not constitute the offence under section 3 (1) (10) of the Act in the circumstances of the case since there was total absence of intention to insult or humiliate or intimidate the complainant because of his belonging to scheduled caste. I have gone through the record and heard the two sides at length. From the evidence of witnesses, it is apparent that they have given different versions about words uttered by the accused appellant. PW 5 Geetabai has said that after abusing her accused persons had said that ''Chamaria randi apne aadmi ko bahar nikal". PW 1 Munnalal has said that accused persons said that "Chamar Ke bhav badh gaye hai", PW 3 Roop Singh has said "Chamara wale bahut bhav badh gaye hai, tume dekhna hai" and as far as PW 2 Jagat Singh is concerned, he has said that the accused person only hurled filthy abuses not referring to caste to which the complainant belongs. These discrepancies occurring in the statements of witnesses create doubt about the words as to what words were actually uttered by the accused person. Besides that the way in which these offending words have been alleged to have been uttered by the appellant, clearly goes to show that he had simply uttered the complainant without any intention to insult or humiliate him because of his belonging to scheduled caste. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the decision of M.P. High Court in the case of Mansharam v. State of M.P. reported in 2000 (1) MPWN 64 wherein it has been held that while incident is taking place suddenly, uttering of words in the name of caste without any intention to insult or humiliate the complainant for his being a member of scheduled caste or scheduled tribes, it will not be sufficient for bringing home charges for the offence under section 3 (1) (10) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Thus, in view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that conviction of appellant for the said charge is bad in law and deserves to be set aside. In the result, appeal is allowed. Conviction and sentence of appellant under section 3 (1) (10) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is set aside and he is acquitted of the charge. Appellant is on bail, his bail bond and surety are discharged.