Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1200 (MP)

SURENDRA KAURAV v. STATE OF M P

2007-11-20

RAKESH SAKSENA

body2007
Judgment ( 1. ) APPLICANTS have filed this revision against the order dated 22-6-2007 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Narsinghpur, in Special case N. 41/2007, framing charge against them under Section 3 (1) (x) of the scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, beside other charges. ( 2. ) LEARNED Counsel for the applicants does not challenge framing of other charges under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code. ( 3. ) LEARNED Counsel for the applicants submits that, on the basis of allegations made in the First Information Report and statements of prosecution witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, no offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out. The incident of "marpeet" and abusing had not occurred because of the complainant being a member of the Scheduled Caste, as such Trial Court committed error in framing charge under the provisions of the Atrocities Act. ( 4. ) IN short, the prosecutions case is that, the complainant Karelal who happened to be a member of the Scheduled Caste lodged the report with the police, AJK, Narsinghpur that about 15 days before 15-2-2007, accused bhagvedra had dashed his she-goat by his tractor, due to which her leg was broken. Karelal and his brother Kehar Singh lodged the report of that occurrence with the Police. Being annoyed, on 15-2-2007 at about 7:00 PM in the evening, all accused persons came at his house armed with lathis and assaulted him, his brother Kehar Singh and Sona Bai (wife of Karelal ). At that time,they abused them and also called them "chamra". Accused persons assaulted them because they had lodged the report with the Police. As a result of assault, Karelal, Kehar Singh and Sona Bai suffered injuries. On the aforesaid report, Police registered the case under Sections 323, 147, 148, 149, 452 and 506-Bof the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (1) (x) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed. Learned trial Court framed the charges under Sections 147, 323 read with Section 149, 325 read with Section 149, 452, 294 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3 (1) (x) of the Atrocities Act. ( 5. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed. Learned trial Court framed the charges under Sections 147, 323 read with Section 149, 325 read with Section 149, 452, 294 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3 (1) (x) of the Atrocities Act. ( 5. ) LEARNED Counsel for the applicants submits that, the incident had not occurred because the complainant party belonged to the Scheduled Caste. In fact, it occurred due to complainants lodging the report against accused bhagvedra for hurting their she-goat by tractor. ( 6. ) LEARNED Counsel for the State vehemently opposing the submissions made by learned Counsel for the applicants, submitted that the accused parsons assaulted the complainants who were the members of the scheduled Caste and at the time of incident, they addressed them as "chamra ". According to him, this is sufficient for framing the charge under Section 3 (1) (x)of the Atrocities Act. ( 7. ) I have perused the First Information Report and statements of witnesses recorded by the Police under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal procedure. Police recorded the statements of Karelal, Sona Bai, Ratnesh, Amit kumar, Kehar Singh, Guddi, Ramsevak and Bhaiji Prasad. Karelal and Sona Bai stated that, about 15-16 days before the present incident, accused Bhagvedra had ran over the she-goat of his brother Kehar Singh by his tractor. Report of that incident was lodged with the Police. Feeling ill of that, all the accused persons went at the house of Kehar Singh and assaulted him. Sona Bai informed about the incident to Karelal. According to them, at the time of beating, accused persons were abusing and saying as- to why he "chamra" lodged the report against Bhagvedra. When Karelal and his wife tried to save Kehar Singh, they were also assaulted. When he ran away from the spot, accused persons also chased him and assaulted Karelal. Same narration of facts was given by witness kehar Singh. He stated that accused persons entered his house and assaulted him by fists and kicks. When his daughter called Karelal, they also assaulted him. After the incident he ran away from the village and did not return back for 2-3 days. He did not say that any of the accused called them "chamar" or "chamra ". ( 8. ) WITNESS Ramsevak stated that complainant Karelal and Kehar singh were in habit of consuming liquor. When his daughter called Karelal, they also assaulted him. After the incident he ran away from the village and did not return back for 2-3 days. He did not say that any of the accused called them "chamar" or "chamra ". ( 8. ) WITNESS Ramsevak stated that complainant Karelal and Kehar singh were in habit of consuming liquor. After consuming liquor they used to create nuisance in the village, therefore, relations between them and accused persons were not good. Similarly, Bhaiji Prasad also stated that Karelal and kehar Singh used to create nuisance after consuming liquor. None of them went at the spot and they merely heard noise of quarrel. ( 9. ) ON perusal of the statements of all the aforesaid witnesses, it does not appear that accused persons abused and assaulted the complainant persons because of their being the members of the Scheduled Caste. The incident had occurred as Karelal had lodged the report against accused Bhagvedra. Section 3 (1) (x) of the Atrocities Act provides that, whoever, not being a member of a scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view; shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine. ( 10. ) ON perusal of the above provision it is abundantly clear that, insult or intimidation caused to a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe should be intentional, i. e. , with intent to insult or humiliate him within public view because of his being a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. This Court in case of Ratan Lal Vs. State of M. P. , reported in 1994 Vol. 1 M. P. Weekly Notes 154, has observed as under:- "in the present case the only fact displayed in the FIR is that the complainant was called "khatik". It is undisputed that he is a khatik. The threats contained in the complaint which follow have nothing to do with the complainant belonging to the Scheduled caste. Those threats eminate out of the past relations between the complainant and the accused as a villager and Sarpanch of the village. It is undisputed that he is a khatik. The threats contained in the complaint which follow have nothing to do with the complainant belonging to the Scheduled caste. Those threats eminate out of the past relations between the complainant and the accused as a villager and Sarpanch of the village. None of the allegations show that they were made with the intent to insult or humiliate the complainant on account of his belonging to a Scheduled Caste. Consequently there is no nexus between the utterance of the word "khatik" and the intention to insult or annoy the complainant. In the absence of such nexus, he has used the word of the caste to which the complainant belong by itself would not be sufficient in the absence of any other material to base factual foundation for a charge under Section 3 (1) (x) ibid. " ( 11. ) IT is true that at the stage of framing charge, evidence and material adduced by the prosecution cannot be critically scrutinized or analyzed with a view to probe possibility of conviction. However, it can be appreciated only with a view to find out as to whether, prima facie, case for proceeding against the accused for an offence is made out. On careful consideration of the facts, as emerge out from the statements of the prosecution witnesses as it is, without adding or subtracting anything in it, there appears lack of essential ingredient of requisite intent on the part of the accused persons as required for commission of an offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The incident had occurred because of lodging of report against the accused bhagvedra in the past. There appears no nexus between commission of offence and caste of the victims. Merely uttering the word "chamra" cannot be taken as sufficient for holding commission of offence under the present Act. ( 12. ) IN the light of the above discussion, this revision is allowed. Charge against the applicants so far as framed under Section 3 (1) (x) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, is quashed. The case for rest of other charges shall proceed and will be disposed of according to the law.