Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 697 (MP)

AMAR SINGH s/o GANESH RAM v. STATE OF M. P.

2008-05-14

A.P.SHRIVASTAVA

body2008
JUDGMENT : 1. Appellants have preferred this appeal under section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 25-6-2002 passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocities Act) Morena (M.P.) in Special Case 03/2001 by which they have been convicted under section 323 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each and under section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months with a fine of Rs. 500/- each with default stipulation. 2. In nutshell, the facts of the case are that as per the First Information Report Ex.P.1, on 4-10-2000 at about 4 p.m. complainant Rambeti (P.W. 1) along with her son Dashi (P.W.2) was going to the hospital Kariahar for the treatment of her son. When near Ganeshpura, appellant Bhura was singing vulgar songs, she objected and said not to sing such type of songs. Then appellant Bhura told words which were derogative to her caste. Appellants Amar Singh and Puran Singh obstructed her way. Appellant Bhura inflicted injuries by lathi on the head and back of her son Dashi (P.W.2). Appellant Puran Singh caught hold of her hands and gave fist blows to her. Appellant Amar Singh also abused her. Ramdas (P.W.3) and Rambaran came for rescue. Thereafter, she lodged the report on the next day morning at about 9:30 at police choki Murghan. The police station Dimani, District Morena registered the case bearing Crime No. 119/2000 through Ex. P.3. and spot map was prepared through Ex.P.2. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completion of the investigation, challan was filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Morena under sections 294, 506, 341, 323 and under section 3(1)(x) of the Act fromwhere the case was committed to the Special Court and the Special Court framed the charges under section 3(1)(x) of the Act and under sections 341, 323 and 506-B of Indian Penal Code. After conclusion of trial, the appellants were convicted under section 323 of Indian Penal Code and under section 3(1)(x) of the Act as stated herein-above and acquitted of the rest of charges. 3. Counsel for the appellants submits that the learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence properly and the finding of conviction is erroneous. After conclusion of trial, the appellants were convicted under section 323 of Indian Penal Code and under section 3(1)(x) of the Act as stated herein-above and acquitted of the rest of charges. 3. Counsel for the appellants submits that the learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence properly and the finding of conviction is erroneous. Merely uttering a word towards a caste does not attract the provisions of section 3(1)(x) of the Act. The testimonies of Rambeti (P.W.1) and Dashi (P.W.2) are contradictory to each other and further, the medical reports of Rambeti (P.W.1) and Dashi (P.W.2) have not been proved by the doctor who examined the injuries of the injured persons before the learned trial Court. In absence of medical report the conviction under section 323 of Indian Penal Code also liable to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-State supported the judgment of the lower Court and submits that as per the prosecution evidence, it is established that the appellants uttered derogative words towards the caste of the complainant and from the testimony of the complainant and his son Dashi (P.W.2), it is established that both of them were beaten by the appellants. Therefore, there is no scope for interference in the finding of learned trial Court. 5. Rambeti (P.W.1) deposed that on the date of incident she along-with her son Dashi (P.W.2) was going to Kariahar for taking medicine. When they reached near a well, appellant Bhura was singing vulgar songs. She objected and asked not to sing such type of songs. Appellant Bhura abused her by saying "Chamariya Hamko Bolna Sikhat Hai". Then appellants Amar Singh and Puran Singh caught hold of her son and appellant Bhura inflicted lathi blow on the head, back and also hands of her son. Appellants Puran Singh and Amar Singh caught hold of her hands. Appellant Puran Singh caught hold of her hands and gave fist blows to her. At that time, Rambaran and Ramdas also came for their rescue. Report was lodged on the next day morning at police out-post Murghan. Police came to the spot and also prepared spot map through Ex.P.2. In her cross-examination, she admits that appellants are known to her. It is denied that due to enmity a false complaint has been made against them. 6. Dashi (P.W.2) has also examined by the prosecution. Report was lodged on the next day morning at police out-post Murghan. Police came to the spot and also prepared spot map through Ex.P.2. In her cross-examination, she admits that appellants are known to her. It is denied that due to enmity a false complaint has been made against them. 6. Dashi (P.W.2) has also examined by the prosecution. He deposed that Rambeti (P.W.1) is his mother. When both of them were going to Kariahar, all the three accused were standing near a well. On seeing his mother, they were singing vulgar songs. When his mother objected and asked not to sing such type of songs then appellants abused her by saying "Chamarko Pakdo". Thereafter, all of them started beating him by which he sustained injuries on his head and back by lathi. Ramdas (P.W.3) and Rambaran came there for rescue. 7. Ramdas (P.W.3) also corroborated the same version as given by Rambeti (P.W.1) and Dashi (P.W.2). 8. Azad Mohd. Khan (P.W.4) was on duty as Head Constable at police station Dimani, District Morena deposed that he registered the case bearing Crime No. 119/2000 through Ex.P.3. Kamal Singh (P.W.6) was posted as D.S.P. at AJK, Morena who prepared the spot map through Ex.P.2 and also taken statements of the witnesses. 9. From the defence, Sughar Singh was also examined as D.W.1. He deposed that the complainant was lodged a false report against the appellants and no incident had taken place between the complainant and the appellants. 10. Although in this case doctor was not examined by the prosecution who examined the injured persons, namely, Rambeti (P.W.1) and Dashi (P.W.2) but from the testimony of the injured Rambeti (P.W.1) and Dashi (P.W.2) and also Ramdas (P.W.3) who was present on the spot, it is clearly established that at the time of incident, appellants "inflicted injuries to Rambeti (P.W.1) and Dashi (P.W.2). Although doctor was not examined but from the oral testimony this fact has remained unchallenged during the cross-examination. Further, under section 323 of Indian Penal Code it is not necessary that in all cases the oral testimony is otherwise found to be reliable and trustworthy. So far as the conviction under section 323 of Indian Penal Code is concerned, finding of learned trial Court appears to be correct and needs no interference. 11. Further, under section 323 of Indian Penal Code it is not necessary that in all cases the oral testimony is otherwise found to be reliable and trustworthy. So far as the conviction under section 323 of Indian Penal Code is concerned, finding of learned trial Court appears to be correct and needs no interference. 11. Regarding section 3(1)(x) of the Act, it is the duty of prosecution to prove the essential ingredients of section 3(1)(x) of the Act. It is pertinent to refer to the offence mentioned under section 3(1)(x) of the Act which read thus : "Whoever not being a member of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view". 12. In this case it is alleged that the cause of dispute was that appellants were singing vulgar songs for which complainant objected, then they uttered the complainant on her caste and also started singing such type of song and thereafter caused simple injuries to the complainant Rambeti (P.W.1) andher son Dashi (P.W.2). 13. Merely uttering a person of his caste does not amount to commission of an offence. In this regard, learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on a decision of this High Court in the case of Shankar Singh vs. State of M. P. reported in 2005 (2) MPWN 21 . 14. In view of the above discussion, the finding of conviction and sentence under section 3(1)(x) of the Act is set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charge levelled against them. The amount of fine if realized, the same shall be returned to them. However, conviction of the appellants under section 323 of Indian Penal Code is hereby maintained. As the incident took place nearly eight years back, therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, sentence of the appellants under section 323 of Indian Penal Code is reduced to till rising of the Court but the amount of fine is imposed to the tune of Rs. 1,000/- (on two counts). In default of payment of fine, they shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. 15. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.