Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 254 (MP)

Tulsiram v. State of M. P.

2007-03-01

RAKESH SAKSENA

body2007
ORDER 1. Applicants have filed this revision challenging the order dated 17.11.2006 passed by Special Sessions Judge, Chhindwara, in Special Sessions Trial No. 70/06, framing the charge against the applicants under section 3 (1) (x) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, applicants have not challenged the charges framed against them, under section 294, 323/34, 324/34 of IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the applicants contended that the trial Court has acted illegally and with material irregularity in framing the charge under section 3 (1) (x) SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. From the evidence and the material on record, no ingredients of the aforesaid offence are disclosed. 3. In short, facts of the case are that the complainant Vinod Nagvanshi is admittedly a member of the schedule caste. His field is adjacent to the field of accused persons. There exists a dispute about 'Medh' between them as their fields are adjacent. On 8.7.2006, when Vinod was ploughing his field, his mother Ram Bai and Sister Raj Kumari were working in the field, accused persons abused them uttering the words 'Katiya' which indicated their caste and holding out threats came to their field and told him as to why he ploughed the land of their side. On his protest, accused Salakram kicked him in his abdomen and when his sister came at the spot, assaulted her also. Accused Tulsiram picked up an axe and assaulted his mother Ram Bai, when she came to rescue him. Vinod Nagvanshi lodged the report with the police, whereupon police registered the case under section 294, 506, 323/34 of IPC & 3 (1) (x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. During investigation police recorded the statements of Vinod, Ram Bai, Raj Kumari, Pappi @ Mahesh and Jhini Bai. All the aforesaid witnesses reiterated the version given by the complainant in the first information report. 4. Learned trial Judge, on the basis of the facts and material on record framed the charge against the applicants under section 3 (1) (x) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, besides other charges. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants contended that for making out the charge under section 3 (1) (x) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, it requires that the utterances must have been made with clear intention of either humiliating or insulting the complainant because of his belonging to the schedule caste or schedule tribe. 6. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants contended that for making out the charge under section 3 (1) (x) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, it requires that the utterances must have been made with clear intention of either humiliating or insulting the complainant because of his belonging to the schedule caste or schedule tribe. 6. On perusal of the statements recorded by police during investigation, it is clearly discemable that he dispute about the 'medh' between both the parties was old one and it was merely because of that animus, the incident had occurred. During the course of incident applicants had called the complainant as 'Katiya'. It is not disputed that the complainant is 'katiya' and belongs to schedule caste. The assault and the threats as alleged in the first information report had nothing to do with the caste of the complainant. The acts of the applicants were the result of the past relations between the complainant and the accused. From the facts, as contained in the challan papers it cannot be gathered that the aforesaid acts were committed with the intention of humiliating or insulting the complainant, on account 0 his belonging to the schedule caste. There appears no nexus between the utterance of the words 'katiya' and the intention of insulting or annoying the complainant. 7. The facts of the present case happen to be similar to the case of Ratanlal v. State of M.P. [1994 (1) WN 154] wherein it has been held that, if there is no nexus between the utterance of the word 'Khatik' and the intention to insult or annoy the complainant, merely by complainant's belonging to schedule caste by itself would not be sufficient to frame the charge under section 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 8. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this revision is allowed. The charge against the applicants, so far as framed under section 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, is quashed. The case, for rest of other offences, shall proceed and will be disposed of according to law.