Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1425 (MP)

Hari Singh v. Arvind Singh

2008-12-10

A.P.SHRIVASTAVA

body2008
ORDER 1. Heard finally at motion stage. 2. Petitioner has preferred this revision petition under section 397 r/w section 401 of CrPC, 1973 against the impugned order dated 13.5.2008, passed by the learned Special Judge, Bhind (M.P.) in Special Case No. 119/06 whereby the learned Special Judge acquitted the respondent No. 1 of the charges under section 294 of IPC and under section 3 (1) (10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities) Act [hereinafter referred to as 'the Atrocities Act']. The learned trial Court convicted the respondent No.1 only under section 323 of IPC and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 700/- with default stipulation. 3. The grievance of the petitioner's counsel is that the learned trial Court has misinterpreted the word 'public view' as envisaged under sections 294 of IPC and 3 (1) (10) of the Atrocities Act because the incident took place in three places (i) in the field of the complainant (ii) while he was going to home (iii) in front of his house. Therefore, it cannot be said that the incident took place only in the field of the complainant. It is also submitted that the abusive language used by the respondent No.1 is derogative to the caste of the complainant who belongs to the community of Scheduled Castes. Therefore, the finding of the learned trial Court deserves to be set aside. 4. Counsel for the respondent No. 1 supported the judgment of the learned trial Court and submitted that as per the First Information Report Ex. P-1. the incident took place in the field of the complainant and in his testimony the complainant exaggerated the incident and disclosed that the incident took place in three places. According to the counsel for the respondent No.1 the incident started when the cattle entered in the field of the respondent No.1; and this is the cause of quarrel and there was no intention to humiliate the complainant by using derogative word regarding his caste. In this regard, counsel for the respondent No.1 relied on some citations, namely, in the case of Tulsiram and another v. State of M.P. [ 2007 (II) MPWN 70 ], it has been held that dispute arised out of medh between the agricultural lands of accused and complainant. Naming of caste is not an offence falling under section 3 (1) (x) of the Atrocities Act. Naming of caste is not an offence falling under section 3 (1) (x) of the Atrocities Act. He also relied on the decision of this High Court in the case of Shankar Singh v. State of M.P. [ 2005 (II) MPWN 21 ], in which it has been held that utterance of word 'chamar' or 'chamaria' which is caste of the complainant, is not enough to attract provision of section 3 (1) (x) of the Atrocities Act. Similarly, counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of this High Court in the case of Mangilal v. State of M. P. [ 2003 (I) MPWN 4 ] in which same principle has been laid down. 5. Counsel for the respondent No.2 - State also supported the judgment of the learned trial Court and submitted that no essential ingredients have been proved regarding the offence under section 294 of IPC and under section 3 (1) (x) of the Atrocities Act. Therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondent No.1. 6. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of material available on record, it appears that it cannot be said that the learned trial Court's appreciation of evidence is perverse or based on whole illegal evidence. In a case of revision, there is very limited scope and the Court can only interfere when the finding is perverse or the jurisdictional discretion has not been properly utilized by the Court below. Therefore, no case is made out. Hence, this revision is dismissed accordingly.