Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 732 (MP)

Sunderlal v. State Of M. P.

2008-06-16

K.S.CHAUHAN

body2008
JUDGMENT : 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 25-2-1994 passed by Special Judge, Damoh in Special Criminal Case No. 54/92 whereby the appellants have been convicted under section 3(1)(x) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and sentenced to R.I. for 1 year with fine of Rs. 500/-, further appellant Chandrabhan has been convicted under section 324 of Indian Penal Code and rest appellants under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R.I. for 1 year with fine of Rs. 500/- respectively. In default of payment of fine to undergo further S.I. for 1 month. 2. The prosecution case in short is that on 17-3-1992 at 12.00 noon, complainant Harishchandra was going to Hindoriya by cycle. The cycle slipped and as a consequence thereof, he fell down and handle hit to Sunder Lal Kurmi who abused him and caused Marpeet by lathi. Chandrabhan Kurmi and Jugla Dhimar also arrived there, inflicted Farsa blow at his legs and lathi blows at his back and buttocks. On his cry, Mathura Bai and Nandu came there who intervened the matter. At the time of beating, the appellants were abusing him by indicating his caste "Chamar". The report was lodged at P. S. Patera. Crime No. 20/92 under sections 324, 323, Indian Penal Code and 3(1)(x) of the Act was registered. Complainant was sent for medical examination who was examined by Dr. P. L. Magraiya who found injuries as per report Ex.P-6. Map was prepared. Statements of witnesses were recorded under section 161, Criminal Procedure Code. After completing the investigation, charge-sheet was filed. 3. The appellants stood charged under section 3(1)(x) of the Act. Further appellant Chandrabhan was also charged under section 324, Indian Penal Code and rest were charged under section 323, Indian Penal Code. They have denied the guilt and claimed to be tried mainly contending that they have been falsely implicated. Prosecution examined 9 witnesses whereas appellants did not examine any witness in their defence. After appreciating the evidence, the trial Court convicted the appellants under section 3(1)(x) of the Act, and appellant Chandrabhan under section 324, Indian Penal Code and Sunderlal and Jugla under section 323, Indian Penal Code and sentenced thereunder as stated in para 1 of the judgment. Prosecution examined 9 witnesses whereas appellants did not examine any witness in their defence. After appreciating the evidence, the trial Court convicted the appellants under section 3(1)(x) of the Act, and appellant Chandrabhan under section 324, Indian Penal Code and Sunderlal and Jugla under section 323, Indian Penal Code and sentenced thereunder as stated in para 1 of the judgment. Being aggrieved by the judgment, finding and sentence, appellants preferred instant criminal appeal on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. 4. Shri P. N. Patel, Advocate, along with Shri M. P. Dubey was engaged by the appellants as their counsel but they did not appear to argue the case on the date of hearing on 25-6-1976 and 8-5-2008. Since the appeal was pending from 1994, therefore, Ku. Snehlata Dixit, Advocate, has been appointed from the panel of High Court Legal Services Committee to argue on behalf of the appellants so that the case may be expeditiously disposed of finally. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective. Independent witnesses have not supported the version of the complainant. The possibility of sustained injuries by fall cannot be ruled out. Words were not uttered to humiliate or insult denoting to his caste. The finding of guilt is erroneous which deserves to be set aside and appellants are entitled for acquittal. 6. On the contrary, Shri R. N. Yadav, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for respondent-State supported the impugned judgment, finding and sentence mainly contending that word "Chamra" was used indicating his caste with intention to humiliation. The prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants and they have been rightly convicted and sentenced, therefore, no inference is called for. 7. The main point for consideration in this appeal is whether the trial Court has committed any illegality in convicting and sentencing the appellants under section 3(1)(x) of the Act, and appellant Chandrabhan under section 324, Indian Penal Code and rest appellants under section 323, Indian Penal Code. 8. Harishchandra (PW-4) is the star witness to this case. He has stated in his deposition that on the date of incident he was going to Hindoriya by cycle, which slipped and hit Sunderlal who abused him saying "Mathar Chod Chamra, Utarkar Jairam Ji Nahin Karta, Raja Bana Hai." Thereafter, he went to river for taking bath. 8. Harishchandra (PW-4) is the star witness to this case. He has stated in his deposition that on the date of incident he was going to Hindoriya by cycle, which slipped and hit Sunderlal who abused him saying "Mathar Chod Chamra, Utarkar Jairam Ji Nahin Karta, Raja Bana Hai." Thereafter, he went to river for taking bath. At the same time, appellants came there. Chandrabhan inflicted Farsa blow at his legs, Jugla lathi blows at his back and hands. Sunderlal slapped and hit by shoes and caused Marpeet. He cried. Mathura bai and Nandu came there and intervened the matter. He lodged the report Ex.P.3. This witness in cross-examination has denied the suggestive questions that he sustained the injuries by fall. 9. No any contradictions and omissions have been brought on record in his statement. His evidence has not been shattered in cross-examination. His evidence is intact on the point regarding abusing him denoting his caste and also causing Marpeet by appellants. He is injured witness, therefore, he is a good eye-witness. There is no reason to falsely implicate the appellants by him or giving false evidence against them. His evidence alone is sufficient to convict the appellants. 10. No doubt other witnesses have not supported the prosecution story. Nandu (PW-1) has only deposed that he saw 3 persons causing Marpeet to Harishchandra but his evidence has been shattered in cross-examination because he could not identify the assailants. 11. The trial Court has considered the evidence of other hostile witnesses and arrived at the conclusion that they have concealed the truth, and therefore, their evidence is not worth reliance. The trial Court has rightly discarded their evidence. 12. Report Ex.P-3 was lodged on the next day which was recorded by Narendra Singh (PW-6) which contained signature of D. K. Dixit, the then SHO, P. S. Patera. No any question has been put either to Harishchandra or to Narendra Singh regarding delay in lodging FIR. No such contention has also been raised before this Court. Therefore delay, if any, in lodging FIR is not fatal to prosecution. 13. Harishchandra was examined by Dr. No any question has been put either to Harishchandra or to Narendra Singh regarding delay in lodging FIR. No such contention has also been raised before this Court. Therefore delay, if any, in lodging FIR is not fatal to prosecution. 13. Harishchandra was examined by Dr. P. L. Magraiya (PW-9) who found the following injuries on his person :- (1) Incised wound 2.5 x .5 x .5 cm on left leg (2) Contusion 7 x 2.5 cm on the back (3) Contusion 9 x 2 cm on the back (4) Contusion 6/2 cm on the back (5) Contusion 7 x 2 cm on the back (6) Contusion 6 x 2.5 cm on the back (7) Contusion 5 x 2.5 cm on left hip (8) Contusion 8 x 2 cm on left hip (9) Contusion 7 x 2 cm on forearm. Out of these injuries, Injury No. 1 may be caused by sharp object and rest of by hand within 24 hours. Medical report is Ex.P-6-A. This witness in cross-examination has admitted that Injury No. 1 may be caused by pointed small piece of stone. No any question has been asked regarding other injuries. Keeping in view the nature of injuries placed on different parts of his body, it cannot be accepted that all these injuries might have been caused by fall. Section 3(1)(x) of the Act reads as under :- Punishment for offences of atrocities. - (1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe - intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine. 14. Complainant Harishchandra is a member of Scheduled Caste. Appellants have insulted him by saying "Chamra". These words were spoken at the place within public view. Thus, all the essential ingredients to constitute the offence under section 3(1)(x) of the Act have been established. They have also caused Marpeet to complainant on account of which he sustained the injuries which are supported by the medical evidence. Therefore, it can safely be said that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants. Thus, all the essential ingredients to constitute the offence under section 3(1)(x) of the Act have been established. They have also caused Marpeet to complainant on account of which he sustained the injuries which are supported by the medical evidence. Therefore, it can safely be said that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants. The trial Court has dealt with the matter in great detail and has rightly arrived at the conclusion regarding the guilt of the appellants. Therefore, the same is hereby affirmed. 15. So far as the sentence is concerned, it appears to be harsh. Therefore, it requires to be reduced. 16. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction of appellants under section 3(1)(x) of the Act and conviction of appellant Chandrabhan under section 324, Indian Penal Code and conviction of appellant Sunder Lal and Jugla under section 323, Indian Penal Code are hereby affirmed. However, their sentence is reduced from 1 year R.I. to R.I. for 6 months in each sections maintaining the sentence of fine as awarded by the trial Court. 17. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled. They be directed to appear before CJM, Damoh on 21-7-2008 for serving out the remaining part of the sentence.