Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 800 (MP)

Munnilal Lodhi v. State of M. P.

2007-07-26

SUSHMA SHRIVASTAVA

body2007
JUDGMENT 1. Appellant has challenged his conviction and order of sentence passed by Special Judge Panna in Special Criminal Case No. 92/91 decided on 7.5.1993. 2. Appellant Munnilal Lodhi has been convicted under section 3 (1) (x) of Scheduled Cast and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989 (hereinafter to be referred as Act) and sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default simple imprisonment for 3 months. Appellant was also convicted under section 294, 323 of IPC, however, no separate sentence was passed for these offences. 3. According to prosecution, on 8.8.1991 at about 10 O'clock in the morning at village Sagra, District Panna, when complainant Santosh Kumar, a member of Scheduled Caste, was returning from the field towards his house, appellant intercepted him on the way and hurled obscene abuses. Appellant also intimidated him by saying that his father had not sent him for grazing his cattle, therefore, he would crack his hands and legs and he would not be able to work anymore. Appellant also pulled his hair and took him near the place of one Shankar Thakur of the village and gave him two-three slaps on his face and fell him on the ground. On his shouting for help, some persons from the village rushed to his rescue. Appellant then fled away. 4. The FIR of the incident was lodged by complainant Santosh Kumar, at Police Station Sagra, District Panna. On the basis of his report, offence was registered against the appellant and was investigated. After due investigation, appellant was prosecuted under section 341, 294 and 323 of IPC and section 3 (1) (x) (xiv) of the Act and was put to trial before Special Court, Panna. 5. Appellant denied the charges framed against him under section 294, 323 of IPC and section 3 (1) (x) of Act and pleaded false implication due to enmity. 6. According to appellant, he had not acceded to the proposal of Vijay Singh and Kishore to cut the wood from the forest therefore, he has been falsely implicated by them through his servant Santosh. 7. Learned Special Judge, after trial and upon appreciation of the evidence adduced in the case, found appellant guilty for the offence under section 294, 323 of IPC and section 3 (1) (x) of the Act and sentenced him as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal. 8. 7. Learned Special Judge, after trial and upon appreciation of the evidence adduced in the case, found appellant guilty for the offence under section 294, 323 of IPC and section 3 (1) (x) of the Act and sentenced him as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant has been erroneously convicted though no case was proved against him. He also submitted that there was not an iota of evidence that appellant committed an offence u/s. 3 (1) (x) of the Act. 9. Perused the evidence on record. PW 1 Santosh Kumar is the complainant. He is a boy aged about 15 years. PW 1 Santosh Kumar deposed in his evidence that in the month of 'Asadh' when he was returning from his field, appellant coming from Sagra Lane, interrupted him and hurled filthy abuses and told him that he would break his hands and legs and render him unable to work. Appellant also dragged him near the place of Shankar Singh and also gave him three-four slaps on his face. PW 1 Santosh Kumar also deposed that he is 'Chamar' by caste, though no certificate of his caste has been filed on record. 10. However, PW 1 Santosh Kumar nowhere stated in his evidence that appellant abused him or slapped him on account of his being 'Chamar' by caste. He never stated that appellant addressed him or named him by caste or insulted or intimidated him on the ground of his being 'Chamar' by caste. On the other hand, according to him, his father had refused to send him to work for the appellant as asked by him four-five days back, therefore, appellant had abused tom and slapped him. 11. It is well settled that in order to sustain conviction under section 3 (1) (x) of the 'Act' , it should be proved that intentional insult or intimidation is caused to a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe with intent to humiliate to him as a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe within the public view by a person who is not a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Mere intimidation or insult or simple beating or hurling of abuses to a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is not enough unless it is coupled with intent to humiliate him as a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Mere intimidation or insult or simple beating or hurling of abuses to a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is not enough unless it is coupled with intent to humiliate him as a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. But, there is nothing in the evidence of PW 1 Santosh Kumar that appellant abused him, slapped him or intimidated or insulted him on account of his being member of Scheduled Caste. There is also nothing in the evidence of PW 2 Vijay Singh and PW 5 Komal or any other evidence on record that the appellant insulted or intimidated the complainant on the ground of his caste. Even in the FIR (Ex. P-1) lodged by the complainant (PW 1), there is no such whisper that appellant wanted to humiliate him as a member of Scheduled Caste. 12. Thus, the trial Court gravely erred in holding the appellant guilty under section 3 (1) (x) of the 'Act' on the basis of so called beating and abusing the complainant, a member of Scheduled Caste. 13. As regards the conviction of the appellant under section 294 of IPC, although, PW 1 Santosh Kumar deposed that appellant uttered filthy abuses and he also reproduced the abuses uttered by the appellant, but he admitted in para 14 of his deposition that he had not heard such abuses earlier and he even did not understand the meaning or implication of such abuses. He also admitted that when the appellant abused him, there was none-else present to listen to abusive language. PW 2 Vijay Singh and PW 5 Komal have also deposed that they did not listen or notice the appellant speaking anything. Thus, when the complainant Santosh Kumar (PW 1) himself did not understand the meaning of words or abuses uttered by the appellant and none-else had heard the abuses allegedly hurled or uttered by the appellant, it cannot be said that the appellant by hurling abuses, if any. caused any annoyance to the complainant or anybody else in the public place. Thus, no offence under section 294 of IPC was proved against the appellant. 14. Similarly there is no sufficient evidence on record for upholding the conviction of appellant under section 323 of IPC. caused any annoyance to the complainant or anybody else in the public place. Thus, no offence under section 294 of IPC was proved against the appellant. 14. Similarly there is no sufficient evidence on record for upholding the conviction of appellant under section 323 of IPC. Although complainant Santosh Kumar (PW I) deposed that appellant had dragged him and slapped him, but admittedly he did not sustain any injury and he also refused for his medical examination because he had no pain at that time. There is no medical evidence on record to the effect that the complainant sustained any bodily injury or pain or infirmity or his hearing was in any way affected, as alleged in the incident. On the other hand, PW 1 Santosh Kumar admitted in his cross-examination that before his deposition he was tutored by police personnels. 15. The evidence of PW 2 Vijay Singh and Komal (PW 5) also does not inspire confidence. PW 2 Vijay Singh stated that he had seen that appellant slapped the complainant and threw him on the ground, but he admitted that he did not see any injury on the body of the complainant. Santosh Kumar (PW I) himself nowhere stated that appellant had thrown him on the ground. Similarly, PW 5 Komal deposed that he had seen the appellant beating the complainant (PW I) and pulling his hair, but he also did not notice any bodily injury on the person of PW 1. 16. The statement of PW 3 Vishal, the father of the complainant and Kishore Singh (PW 4) that they had seen swelling on the face of the complainant (PW 1) is not reliable as it is not corroborated by the evidence of complainant Santosh himself or any other so called eye witnesses or by any medical evidence. The aforesaid witnesses PW 3 Vishal and PW 4 Kishore Singh were admittedly not present on the scene of occurrence. Thus, it was also not duly proved that appellant had voluntarily caused hurt to the complainant. Needless to mention, that no separate sentence for the offences under sections 323 and 294 of IPC was passed by the trial Court 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, no case under section 3 (1) (x) of the Act and sections 294 and 323 of IPC was proved against the appellant. 18. Appeal is, therefore, allowed. Needless to mention, that no separate sentence for the offences under sections 323 and 294 of IPC was passed by the trial Court 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, no case under section 3 (1) (x) of the Act and sections 294 and 323 of IPC was proved against the appellant. 18. Appeal is, therefore, allowed. The conviction of the appellant under section 3 (1) (x) of Act and sections 294 and 323 of IPC as well as the impugned sentence imposed on him are set aside and appellant is acquitted of the aforesaid charges. 19. Appellant is on bail. His bail bonds shall stand discharged.