Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1376 (MP)

HIMMAT SINGH v. STATE OF MP.

2009-12-15

K.S.CHAUHAN

body2009
Judgment K.S.Chauhan, J. ( 1. ) 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 19.06.2003 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities) Raisen in Special Case No.45/00 whereby the appellant has been found guilty under Sections 294, 506 of I.P.C. and 3(l)(x) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sentenced to fine of Rs.200/- in default of payment of fine one month S.I. and fine of Rs.200/- in default of payment of fine one month S.I. and 6 months R.I with fine of Rs. 100/- in default of payment of fine S.I. for 15 days respectively. ( 2. ) The prosecution case in short is that Kadorilal Chamar a member of the Scheduled Castes lodged report at Police Station Dehgaon on 20.03.2000 at 11.00 AM to the effect that on that day at about 8.00 AM he was inviting the persons in the village on Holi Festival as soon as he came nearby to the house of Bhagwan Singh Sarpanch the appellant came there and started abusing him and said "madarchod tujhe kisne chowkidar banaya" he asked him not to abuse him denoting to the caste. The appellant tried to assault with shoe but he was caught by his brother Sher Singh, Bhagwan Singh Sarpanch, Kallu Baretha and Munna Singh have witnessed the incident. On this intimation the Crime No.30/2000 under Sections 294, 506 of I.P.C- and 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was registered against the appellant. Spot map was prepared. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completing the usual investigation charge sheet was filed in the court of CJM Raisen who committed the case to Sessions Court for trial. ( 3. ) Appellant was charged under Sections 294, 506-B of I.P.C. and under Section 3(l)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. He denied the guilt and claimed to be tried mainly contending that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. Prosecution examined as many as five witnesses and appellant also examined one witness in his defence. He denied the guilt and claimed to be tried mainly contending that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. Prosecution examined as many as five witnesses and appellant also examined one witness in his defence. After appreciating the evidence trial Court found him guilty under Sections 294 and 506 of I.P.C. and also under Section 3(l)(x) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sentenced thereto as stated in para No. 1 of the judgment. Being aggrieved by the judgment finding and sentenced passed by the trial Court the instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. ( 4. ) Shri Ashok Chakravarty, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective. Appellant has not abused him denoting his caste, therefore, no offence under Section 3(l)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been made out. The finding of guilt is erroneous which deserves to be set aside and appellant is entitled for acquittal. ( 5. ) On the contrary Shri J.K.Jain, Dy. Advocate General appearing on behalf of respondent/State supported the impugned judgment finding and sentenced mainly contending that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. Trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant. It does not call for any interference hence appeal be dismissed. ( 6. ) The main point for consideration in this appeal is that whether the trial Court has committed any illegality in convicting the appellant under Sections 294, 506 of I.P.C. and under Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989? ( 7. ) Kadori Lal (PW-1) is the complainant. He has clearly stated that he is chamar by caste. This fact has been admitted by the appellant also in his examination of accused recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, it is proved that the victim is a member of scheduled caste. ( 8. ) Kadori Lal (PW-1) has given the evidence in support of the prosecution case. He has clearly stated that this appellant abused him denoting his caste and also tried to assault him by shoe. As soon as he tried to beat him Sher Singh caught hold of the appellant even thereafter he threatened him to kill. He lodged the report (Ex.P-1). He has clearly stated that this appellant abused him denoting his caste and also tried to assault him by shoe. As soon as he tried to beat him Sher Singh caught hold of the appellant even thereafter he threatened him to kill. He lodged the report (Ex.P-1). The police prepared the map (Ex.P-2) during the course of investigation. Nothing has been brought in cross-examination so as to discredit his testimony. There is no reason to disbelieve his statement. His evidence is convincing. He appears to be a reliable witness. His evidence is acceptable. ( 9. ) Bhagwan Singh (PW-4) has also supported evidence of complainant Kadori Lal (PW-1). He has stated that appellant abused the victim saying "chamarawala garra raha hai". He also abused filthy languages. He has denied the suggestive question put in the cross-examination that on holi festival the people used to call chamar denoting him chamarawala. He has also denied the suggestive questions that the appellant has been falsely implicated at his instance due to election rivalry. He has admitted that the appellant belongs to his family. Thus, Bhagwan Singh (PW-4) who is the member of the appellant family has given evidence against him. Nothing has been brought on record so as to discredit his testimony. His evidence also inspires confidence. The evidence of Narayan Singh (DW-1) that there is landed dispute between Bhagwan Singh and appellant and for this reason the appellant has been falsely implicated can not be accepted. There is no reason as to why Kadorilal would implicate this appellant at his instance. Kadorilal was chowkidar of that village and he had nothing to do with the landed dispute in between appellant and Bhagwan Singh (PW-4). The defence is only an after thought which is not acceptable. Trial court has rightly discarded the same. ( 10. ) There is ample evidence that appellant abused and threatened the member of the scheduled caste denoting his caste. It is also manifestly clear that on the day of incident there was holi festival and several persons were assembled there. He insulted complainant the member of the scheduled caste at the place which was in the public view. ( 11. ) There is ample evidence that appellant abused and threatened the member of the scheduled caste denoting his caste. It is also manifestly clear that on the day of incident there was holi festival and several persons were assembled there. He insulted complainant the member of the scheduled caste at the place which was in the public view. ( 11. ) The provisions of Section 3(l)(x)of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (The Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are as follows:- "(1) Whoever, not being a member of 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". ( 12. ) In the case of Swaran Singh and others vs. State (2008) Volume 8 SCC 435 the Apex Court has held thus:- "Calling a member of the Scheduled Caste "chamar" with intent to insult or humiliate him in a place within public view is certainly an offence under Section 3(l)(x) - of the act." ( 13. ) In the light of the aforesaid pronouncement of the Apex Court and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the prosecution has established the case beyond reasonable doubt against appellant and the court below has not committed any illegality in convicting the appellant for the offences charged. There is no infirmity, illegality, impropriety or perversity in the finding of the court below hence does not call for interference. Minimum sentence provided for the offence under Section 3 (l)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is awarded. Therefore it also does not call for interference. The appeal is meritless and deserves to be dismissed. ( 14. ) Consequently, appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. The conviction and sentenced passed by the court below are hereby affirmed. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled. He is directed to appear before C.J.M. Raisen on 21.01.2010 for serving out the remaining part of the sentence. Appeal dismissed.