Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1414 (MP)

Ram Chandra v. State of M. P.

2008-12-05

LNDRANI DATTA

body2008
JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 31.7.2003 passed by the Special Judge, Bhind in Special Sessions Case No. 21/03 by which appellants have been convicted under section 3 (I) (x) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for brevity "Act") and sentenced to undergo six months imprisonment. 2. As per prosecution case, on 27.10.2002 complainant was sitting in his house. His calf went near the house of appellant Ramchandra. Appellants then abused complainant's son and assaulted complainant's son and when complainant Shriram and his wife tried to intervene, appellants then started beating them also. PW 4 Subhash Tomar and Rajjan intervened. Complaint was filed by complainant Shriram at Police Station City Kotwali district Bhind. FIR (Ex P-3) was lodged. After investigation charge-sheet was filed in the Court of JMFC Bhind, from where the case was committed to the Special Court, Bhind. 3. Appellants were prosecuted, charged and tried for committing offence under section 3 (1) (x) of the Act and under section 294, 325 in alternative 325/34, 323 in alternative 323/34 IPC and the appellants were acquitted from the charge under section 294, 325 in alternative 325/34, 323 in alternative 323/34 IPC on the basis of compromise filed by complainant in trial Court. Appellants were convicted under section 3 (1) (x) of the Act and sentenced as aforesaid, hence this appeal. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that there is no consistent evidence on record against the appellants regarding intentional insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate complainant party. Complainant has not stated anything about uttering any words with respect to caste of complainant in his report Ex. P-2. First time he has stated in his statement recorded under section 161 CrPC that appellants called him Dhanukawale, therefore offence under section 3 (I) (x) of Act is not made out and the trial Court has erred in convicting the appellants for committing offence punishable under section 3 (1) (x) of the Act. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has supported the impugned judgment and prayed for dismissal of appeal. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as eight witnesses. Complainant is PW 1 Shriram. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has supported the impugned judgment and prayed for dismissal of appeal. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as eight witnesses. Complainant is PW 1 Shriram. He has deposed that on the day of incidence appellant Ramchandra abused his son and assaulted him. He has not stated that appellants uttered word "Dhanukawale" with respect to their caste. 8. PW 2 Sansarwati and PW 3 Radhakishan, wife and son of complainant quarrelled with them that why their calf had come towards their house and appellants abused them and called "Dhanukawale". PW 4 Subhash Tomar has further corroborated the statement of these witnesses. In examination-in-chief he has stated that on that day he heard appellants calling complainant party Dhanukawale. 9. As far as offence under section 3 (1) (x) of Act is concerned, in order to make out offence under section 3 (1) (x) of the Act what are the ingredients to constitute the offence is to be seen. "To constitute the offence under section 3 (1) (x) it is necessary that whoever not being a member of Scheduled Caste intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate the member of Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view, then this offence is made out". 10. The word "intentional" means "done purposely". The term intentional has been used in relation to act done by or with intention which means to do wrong with intent. As per law lexicon a person who by his declaration act or omission had caused another to believe a thing to be true or to act upon that believe must be held to have done so intentionally with the meaning of statute. 11. In case of Jashrath Singh and another v. State of M.P., 2005 (4) MPLl 363 appellants-accused uttered the words "Yah Chamar Panchayat Ho Rahi Hai". It was held by this Court that these words were not offending and these were not told with intention to insult or humiliate the member of Scheduled Caste and offence under section 3 (1) (x) of the Act is not made out. 12. It was held by this Court that these words were not offending and these were not told with intention to insult or humiliate the member of Scheduled Caste and offence under section 3 (1) (x) of the Act is not made out. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants drew this Court's attention to the judgment of this Court in the case of Sharad Kachhi v. State of M.P.[ 2006 (1) MPWN 134 = 2005 (4) MPHT 30 ]. It was a case where offence under section 3 (1) (x) and 3 (1) (xiv) of the Act was alleged to have been committed. As per the case of the prosecution the appellants hurled abuses and it was held that merely because word "Chamra" has been used that would not mean that it was used in order to intentionally insult or humiliate the complainant who is belonging to Scheduled Caste. It has been further held that merely because the appellant has denoted him by his caste "Chamar" would not attract the provisions of section 3 (I) (x) of the Act of 1989. 13. In view of the observations and after scrutiny of complainant's evidence it is apparent that dispute started all of a sudden with respect that complainant's calf had gone near the house of appellants, therefore, even though presuming that appellants used the word "Ohanukawale" it cannot be held that they uttered these words with intention to humiliate the complainant party as they belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. 14. In the case of Lalit Kumar and another v. State of M.P. [ 2007 (III) MPWN 58 ] intentional insult or intimidation was not proved to have caused because of caste. Certificate of caste was not produced, complainant not supported the case, conviction under section 3 (1) (x) and 3 (1) (v) was set aside. 15. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, no case under section 3 (1) (x) of the Act is proved from the evidence available on record. The learned trial Court has erred in convicting the appellants. 16. In the result conviction of appellants under section 3 (1) (x) of Act cannot be sustained and hence the appeal is allowed and the conviction under section 3 (1) (x) of Act and impugned sentence awarded to the appellants is hereby set aside. 17. Appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds and surety bonds stand discharged.