Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1333 (MP)

Premchandra Rajak v. State of M. P.

2006-11-23

RAKESH SAKSENA

body2006
ORDER 1. Petitioners have filed this revision against the order dated 14.6.2006, passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Jabalpur, in Special Sessions Trial No. 17/06, framing the charge against them for the offences under section 147, 294, 323, 506, 353 of IPC and section 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, in brief 'the Act'. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that only grievance of the petitioners is that in the facts and circumstances of the case prima facie no charge under section 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST (Prevention Atrocities) Act is made out. The trial Court committed error in framing the charge under the provisions of the said Act. Petitioners did not challenge the framing of charge under other sections of Indian Penal Code. 3. In brief, the prosecution case is that the complainant Bedilal lodged a report on 16.5.2005 contending that he being Village Sarpanch was getting the floor of the passage constructed. At about 10:00 a.m., accused Premchandra Rajak with the help of his son lifted the stone slabs from the passage and started obstructing the passage by putting a hedge. When he remonstrated with them, accused Premchandra hurled filthy abuses and intimidated him. Sons of Premchandra namely Banti and Munnalal caught hold of his collor. Kalu and Dilip pelted stones of him, due to which, he suffered injuries on hand, abdomen and head. Shiv Charan and Rokad Patel intervened in the quarrel. According to complainant, petitioners had intimidated and insulted him at a place within public view knowing him to be an 'Adiwasi'. 4. During investigation, police recorded the statements of Imrat, Jhunnilal, Manish Patel and Asharam. All the aforesaid witnesses stated that petitioners had removed the stone slabs from the passage and were closing the passage, therefore, on objection being raised by the complainant, they hurled filthy abuses and intimidated him saying "Sala Adiwasi Kaise Sarpanch Retha Hai" and assaulted him. 5. Accepting the prosecution evidence in its entirety, as it is, it does not indicate that complainant Bedilal was intimidated or insulted because of his being member of scheduled tribe. Section 3 (l) (x) of the Act reads as under : "3. 5. Accepting the prosecution evidence in its entirety, as it is, it does not indicate that complainant Bedilal was intimidated or insulted because of his being member of scheduled tribe. Section 3 (l) (x) of the Act reads as under : "3. Punishments for offences of atrocities.-- (l) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,- (x) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view;" 6. Perusal of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that it is necessary for holding a person liable under the above provision that he should have insulted or intimidated the member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe with intent to humiliate him because of his being the member of such caste, within public view. On facts in hand, it does not appear that the complainant was abused and assaulted solely for the purpose of insulting him because of his being the member of Scheduled Tribe. It is clear from the statements of the witnesses that the incident occurred because the accused persons removed the stone slabs from the passage and the complainant being Sarpanch of the village objected the action of accused persons. 7. On a report by accused Premchandra, Crime No. 441/05 has been registered by the police against complainant party in respect of the same incident, u/s. 506, 294, 324, 323/34 of IPC. 8. In the above circumstances, even accepting the prosecution in its entirety, it is not possible to hold that the petitioners had committed the offence u/s. 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 9. Accordingly, this revision is allowed. The charge framed by the trial Court for the offence under section 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is set aside. However, trial Court shall proceed with the case for the other offences according to law.