Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1215 (MP)

Kavindra Nath Thakur v. State of M. P.

2008-10-14

K.S.CHAUHAN

body2008
ORDER 1. This criminal appeal under section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred being aggrieved by the judgment, finding and sentence dated 8.8.1994 passed by Special Judge, Balaghat in Special Case No. 31/1992, whereby the appellant has been convicted under section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sentenced to R.I. for 6 months with fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of the S.I. for 1-1/2 month. 2. Prosecution case in short is that on 28.2.1992 at about 5:30 p.m. complainant Bharatlal Mahar, Peon in the office of Block Development officer, Khairlanji brought Government dak to the house of Kavindra Nath Thakur, Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Kinhi for delivery. He read the letter and thereafter hurled abuses to BDO and the complainant himself. Thereafter he also assaulted the complainant with fist and kick blows and gave him shoe beating. Thus he intentionally insulted and threatened to the member of Scheduled Caste. Written report was submitted at outpost Khairlanji where the Crime No. 97/92 under sections 353, 294, 506, 332 of IPC was registered on 18.3.1992 at 9:00 p.m. On the basis of it Crime No. 97/92 was registered at Police Station, Ram Payali. Map was prepared. Letter was seized. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completing the investigation the charge sheet was filed in the Court of Special Judge, Balaghat who committed the case to the Sessions Court for trial. 3. Appellant was charged under section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Appellant abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried. Prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses whereas the appellant did not examine any witness in defence. After appreciating the evidence, trial Court found him guilty under section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and sentenced thereto as stated hereinabove in Para No.1 of the judgment. Being aggrieved by the judgment, finding and sentence the instant appeal has been preferred on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective. No independent witness has supported the prosecution case. There is delay in lodging the FIR. Being aggrieved by the judgment, finding and sentence the instant appeal has been preferred on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective. No independent witness has supported the prosecution case. There is delay in lodging the FIR. No plausible explanation has been given by the prosecution for such delay. The complainant has not sustained any injury. There was no any intention or motive to cause marpeet or abuse him. The victim was not known to the appellant before this incident. The finding of guilt is erroneous which deserves to be set aside and the appellant is entitled for acquittal. 5. On the contrary, Shri G.P. Singh, learned Dy. G.A. appearing on behalf of respondent-State supported the impugned judgment, finding and sentence mainly contending that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant and he has been rightly convicted and sentenced by the trial Court, therefore, it does not call for any interference. 6. The main point for consideration in this appeal is that whether the trial Court has committed any illegality in convicting and sentencing the appellant under section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989? 7. Bharatlal Raut (PW 1) has deposed that at the relevant time he was Peon at Block Office, Khairlanji. He carried one enclosed envelope along with the slip to be handed over to the appellant at his house at 5:30 p.m. The appellant read the letter and thereafter hurled abuses to the BDO and to complainant himself. He tore the slip, caused marpeet and threatened him. He returned back to Khairlanji and lodged the report (Ex. P-1). 8. This witness in cross-examination has admitted that he has visited this village for the first time and he was not knowing the appellant from before this incident. Thus there was no enmity with him, therefore, he cannot say as to why he was beaten. This witness has further stated in cross-examination that though the outpost Khairlanji was on the way but he did not lodge the report on the same day. Firstly he told to his officer and then lodged the report. 9. Thus there was no enmity with him, therefore, he cannot say as to why he was beaten. This witness has further stated in cross-examination that though the outpost Khairlanji was on the way but he did not lodge the report on the same day. Firstly he told to his officer and then lodged the report. 9. T.R. Kori (PW 3), BDO, Khairlanji has stated that the complainant Bharatlal apprised about the incident to him at about 8:00 p.m. on the same day. He advised him to lodge the report on the next day. 10. Lakhanlal Yadav (PW 4) who was clerk in the office has stated that Bharatlal Raut (PW 1) told him the incident and apprised that slip was torn and therefore he is not in a position to return back the acknowledgment slip. 11. Ranglal Deshmukh (PW 2) has not supported the prosecution case and therefore declared hostile. 12. B.L. Mishra (PW 6) has deposed that on the basis of written report (Ex. P-1) the FIR (Ex. P-7) was written. 13. On appraisal of the prosecution evidence it is manifestly clear that the complainant Bharatlal Raut (PW 1) and the appellant were unaware with each other from before this incident, therefore, the caste 0 the complainant was not known to the appellant. There was no any question of ill-will or enmity against him. It appears that complainant Bharatlal Raut is suppressing the fact as to why appellant hurled abuses and caused his marpeet. It is unnatural that on delivering the letter to the concerned he would give him beating and abuse. When he was so seriously beaten by the appellant, why medical examination was not done. Ranglal Deshmukh (PW 2) who has been produced as an eye-witness on the incident has not supported the prosecution case. There is no other independent witness to support the prosecution story and Bharatlal Raut (PW 1) himself has given the exaggerated statement, therefore, he is not fully reliable witness. 14. Apart from it when Bharatlal Raut (PW 1) was returning back and outpost Khailanji was on the way then why did not he lodge report immediately. It is evident that the report (Ex. P-1) was lodged after due deliberation and consultation with the office employees and the officer himself. 14. Apart from it when Bharatlal Raut (PW 1) was returning back and outpost Khailanji was on the way then why did not he lodge report immediately. It is evident that the report (Ex. P-1) was lodged after due deliberation and consultation with the office employees and the officer himself. It is surprising that when Bharatlal Raut apprised T.R Kori, BDO on the same day then why he did not send him to lodge the report at outpost Khairlanji. The report is exaggerated and does not contain the true facts of the case, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case the report is delayed and no plausible explanation has been offered of behalf of the prosecution to condone such delay. 15. To attract section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act the intentional insults or intimidation must be at the place in the public view. According to Bharatlal Raut this incident took place in the house of appellant. No evidence is adduced A3 to how the place of occurrence was within the public view, therefore, this essential element to prove the offence under section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities} Act is missing in this case. 16. In the case else of J. Sumana v. Endluri Aseerwadamma, 2003 (1) ALD (Crij 252 (AP), it has been held that where the petitioner was alleged to have abused in his chamber, the complainant, on the ground of caste. But there was no public in the chamber and it was not within the public view. As such no offence could be said to be committed under section 3 (1)(x). 17. In the case of K. Padma Reddy v. Station House officer, Bellampalli, 2004 Cri.LJ 503 (AP), it has been held that where FIR was registered on a complaint for abusing a person in the name of caste by the petitioner add that every utterance which came within the purview of provision of Act by itself was not offence, unless it was made in a place within the public view. In the instant case, scene of offence was Chamber of Municipal Commissioner. As there was no allegation to effect that said utterance was made 'within public view', therefore, offence could not be said to have been committed by the petitioner. 18. In the instant case, scene of offence was Chamber of Municipal Commissioner. As there was no allegation to effect that said utterance was made 'within public view', therefore, offence could not be said to have been committed by the petitioner. 18. To attract this section the alleged insult or intimidation is to be done with intent to humiliate a member belonging to that particular community. Merely call by caste is not sufficient to constitute the offence. 19. Thus, from the foregoing discussion, it can be said that the prosecution has failed to prove all the essential ingredients required to prove the offence under section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, therefore, the finding of guilt is erroneous which deserves to be set aside and the appellant is entitled for acquittal. 20. Consequently, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court under section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted from the charge under section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. He is on bail. His bail bonds are discharged. He be set at liberty.