Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1031 (MP)

Vidyaram v. State of M. P.

2009-08-26

S.S.DWIVEDI

body2009
Judgment ( 1. ) The appellants have preferred this appeal under section 374 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 22/11/2003 passed by the Special Judge, Bhind, in Special Case No. 5/03, whereby the appellants-accused have been held guilty for the offences punishable under sections 3 (1) (x) and 3 (1) (iv) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "SC-ST Act" for brevity) and each of them sentenced to suffer 6 months R.I. with a fine of Rs. 500/- on each count, in default of payment of fine further ordered to suffer imprisonment for two months. They are further held guilty for the offence punishable under section 294 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to one months R.I. ( 2. ) Briefly stated facts of the case are that complainant Shiv Dayal, who belonged to the Scheduled Caste community has been allotted certain agricultural land by the competent authority bearing Survey Numbers 210,210/1 and 213 situated at Village Khokhipura, police Station Gormi, District Bhind, and thereafter possession has also been given by the Revenue Officer on 24.9.2002. Complainant Shiv Dayal and others went to the concerning agricultural field to plough the field, at that time, it is alleged that all the appellants-accused came there armed with lathis, started abusing the complainant, threatened them to be killed and also obstructed ploughing operation of the field concerned. The matter has been reported to the Police Station Gormi, District Bhind, on which basis, the Police had registered a case under sections 3 (1) (x) and 3(1) (iv) of the SC- ST Act and also under sections 447, 294 and 506 of IPC, recorded the statements, of the witnesses, arrested the accused persons and after due investigation, a charge sheet has been filed. ( 3. ) The appellants-accused persons abjured the guilt and their defence is of false implication. ( 4. ) The learned trial Court after due appreciation of the entire evidence on record by the impugned judgment held all the appellants guilty for the offence punishable under sections 3 (1) (x) and 3 (1) (iv) of of the SC-ST Act and also under section 294 of IPC and sentenced each of them as stated hereinabove, aggrieved by which the appellants have preferred this appeal. ( 5. ( 5. ) I have heard the learned counsel of the appellants as well as the learned Government Advocate for the State and perused the record. ( 6. ) It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that appellant Vidyaram is the owner of the land of Survey Number 213 of Village Gormi and that land has wrongly been entered in the Government Khasra as Government land and has been allotted in favour of the complainant and this allotment has been challenged by accused Vidyaram, Kedarnath and Shadilal before the SDO, Mehgaon in the Revenue Case No. 74/02-03/A-5 and the SDO Mehgaon in the aforesaid case by order dated 5/6/2003 arrived at conclusion that the land of Survey Number 213 has been wrongly allotted in favour of the complainant. The necessary correction has been ordered in the revenue record by the SDO. ( 7. ) In view of the aforesaid order passed by the competent authority, it is apparent that on the land Survey Number 213 of the Village concerned, accused Vidyaram was in peaceful possession and if that being so, the allotment of the aforesaid land in favour of the complainant is found to be erroneous and if the complainants forcibly entered into the land which is in possession of accused Vidyaram, then certainly the act of prohibiting the entry of the complainant in the land does not constitute the offence punishable under Sections 3 (1) (x) and 3 (1) (iv) of the SC-ST Act and the learned trial Court has wrongly held the appellants guilty for the aforesaid offence. Hence, prayed for setting aside of the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court and also for acquittal of the appellants. ( 8. ) In the reply, the learned Government Advocate for the State has supported the impugned judgment and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. ( 9. Hence, prayed for setting aside of the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court and also for acquittal of the appellants. ( 8. ) In the reply, the learned Government Advocate for the State has supported the impugned judgment and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. ( 9. ) In order to bring home the charge as levelled against the appellants, the prosecution has placed reliance on the statement of Shiv Dayal (PW 3), who stated that certain land of Survey Number 210/2 has been allotted in his favour and on the date of allotment, he together with other witnesses entered into the field, at that time, the accused persons came there and started abusing and also obstructed the ploughing work proposed to be done by the complainant, for which he has lodged the First Information Report (Ex.P/5) at the Police Station concerned. He also admitted that in the report (Ex.P/5), he has not mentioned that the Village Patwari and Revenue Inspector had delivered possession to him after the allotment of the land concerned. ( 10. ) The most material documentary evidence on record is Ex.D/5 and the order passed by the SDO, Mehgaon, which is in favour of accused Vidyaram. ( 11. ) On perusal of the aforesaid certified copy of the order dated 5.6.2003 passed by the SDO, Mehgaon, under the provisions of section 89 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, on an application filed by accused Vidyaram and others for necessary correction in the revenue record, it is apparent that in the revenue record, the Patwari and concerning revenue personnel have wrongly mentioned the Survey Number 213 as Government land, of which the necessary allotment has been made by the Revenue Authority in favour of the complainant. In this order, the concerning competent authority came to the conclusion that Survey Number 213 belongs to Vidyaram and has wrongly been mentioned as Government land in the revenue record and has wrongly been allotted in favour of the complainant; whetheras the Survey Number 14.1.76and 14.2.22 is found to be the Government land of which the necessary patta can be allotted in favour of the complainant. ( 12. ) Considering the aforesaid order (Ex.D/5), it is apparent that the concerning land of Survey Number 213/02 belonged to accused Vidyaram, for which the complainant has lodged written application (Ex.P/2) in the Police Station for the disturbance made by the accused party. ( 12. ) Considering the aforesaid order (Ex.D/5), it is apparent that the concerning land of Survey Number 213/02 belonged to accused Vidyaram, for which the complainant has lodged written application (Ex.P/2) in the Police Station for the disturbance made by the accused party. ( 13. ) If the land of Survey Number 213/2 belonging to accused Vidyaram, of which a Patta has been wrongly granted in favour of the complainant, then certainly the accused party is having the right to obstruct the ploughing work alleged to be done by the complainant on the land concerned and for this act, the appellants-accused cannot be held guilty for the offence punishable under section 3(1) (iv) of the SC-ST Act. ( 14. ) With regard to the charge under section 3 (1) (x) of the SC-ST Act is concerned, the only allegation against the accused persons in the complaint of Shiv Dayal that while abusing the complainant the accused used a word "Kuriyawala", which is denoting the caste of the complainant. ( 15. ) It is settled law on the point that only using the caste words against the complainant does not constitute the offence for insulting the complainant on a public place as he belonging to a member of Scheduled Caste community. Reliance can be placed for this on the decision of this Court reported in the case of Premchand Rajak and others v. State ofM.p, 2007 (1) MPWN 96 , of which the relevant Para 6 reads thus: "6. Perusal of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that it is necessar for holding a person liable under the above provision that he should have insulted or intimidated the member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe with intent to humiliate him because of his being the member of such caste, within public view.On facts in hand, it does not appear that the complainant was abused and assoulted solely for the purpose of insulting him because of his be,ing the member of Scheduled Tribe. It is clear from the statements of witnesses that the incident occurred because the accused persons removed the stone slabs from the passage and the complainant being Sarpanch of the village objected the action of accused persons." ( 16. It is clear from the statements of witnesses that the incident occurred because the accused persons removed the stone slabs from the passage and the complainant being Sarpanch of the village objected the action of accused persons." ( 16. ) In view of the aforesaid decision of the Court only by using a word "Kuriyawala" this cannot be inferred that any of the accused is having any intention to insult the complainant on public place. When the incident took place in the field, which is not found to be a public place as defined under the Act. ( 17. ) Similarly, with regard to the offence punishable under section 294 of IPC is concerned, as per the statement of Shiv Dayal (PW 3), it is apparent that the accused persons are abusing the complainant on the field concerned. This has further been supported by the statements of Barelal (PW 5) and Preetam Jatav (PW 6) also and has got further support by propmptly lodged FIR. In view of the above, the charge under section 294 of IPC is found to be proved against the accused persons. ( 18. ) The accused appellant has also examined one defence witness Ram Dutt Sharma (DW 1), who proved the documantary evidence Ex. D/5, the order passed by the SDO as stated hereinabove. ( 19. ) In view of the aforesaid discussion of the entire evidence on record, in my considered opinion, the charges under sections 3 (1) (x) and 3 (1) (iv) of the SC-ST Act are not found to be proved against the appellants and the appellants are entitled to be acquitted; whereas the charge under section 294 of IPC is proved against the appellants. ( 20. ) So far as the sentence under section 294 of IPC is concerned, the appellants remained in jail for sometime and the trial Court has also sentenced them for one months imprisonment only. The appellants are facing trial since 2002 and 7 years have already been passed, in the circumstances, the sentence can be reduced to the period already undergone. ( 21. ) Resultantly, the appeal preferred by the appellants is allowed in part. The appellants are facing trial since 2002 and 7 years have already been passed, in the circumstances, the sentence can be reduced to the period already undergone. ( 21. ) Resultantly, the appeal preferred by the appellants is allowed in part. The conviction of the appellants under sections 3 (1) (x) and 3(1) (iv) of the SC-ST Act and sentences thereof are set aside and the appellants are acquitted from the aforesaid charges; whereas, the conviction of the appellants under section 294 of IPC is affirmed, but the sentence of one months RI is set aside and instead thereof, the appellants are sentenced to the period already undergone by them in jail with a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 on each. The appellants have already deposited the fine of Rs. 500.00 on two counts for the offences under sections 3 (1) (x) and 3 (1) (iv) of the SC-ST Act. This will be set off in the fine imposed by this judgment for the offence under section 294 of IPC. The appellants are on bail, their bail bonds are discharged.