Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 814 (MP)

Ravi Sharma v. State of M. P.

2010-08-11

ANIL SHARMA

body2010
ORDER Arguments heard. 1. Applicant has filed this petition challenging the order dated 15.6.2010 passed by the learned Special Judge, Ashok Nagar in special S.T. No. 13/2010 whereby framed charges for an offence under section 3 (2) (v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 along with other charges on the ground that the complainant Jagdish was a member of Scheduled Caste. 2. On perusal of FIR and statement of complainant recorded under section 161 of CrPC, it is clear that none of the accused persons has said any word about his caste at the time of incident. Even, in the FIR offence punishable under section 3 (2) (v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was not mentioned. It was added later on, only on the basis of the statements of witnesses, Neeraj Soni and Kailash Singh in which they have said that at the time of beating the complainant, the accused persons were abusing the complainant by uttering his caste. But same has again been missing in the statements of other witnesses i.e. Ghanshayam and Manoj Jain recorded under section 161 of Cr.P.C. 3. At this juncture, it would be relevant to refer to section 3 (2) (v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 which provides for punishment with imprisonment for a term often years or more against a person or property on the ground that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member, shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine. 4. Here in the instant case the accused persons have not beaten the complainant on the ground that he belongs to Scheduled Caste. Further complainant Jagdish has never complained in the FIR or his statement recorded, under section 161 of CrPC that he was beaten by the accused persons for the reason that he belongs to Scheduled Caste. Further he has not said that he was insulted or intimidated by such allegation. Further complainant Jagdish has never complained in the FIR or his statement recorded, under section 161 of CrPC that he was beaten by the accused persons for the reason that he belongs to Scheduled Caste. Further he has not said that he was insulted or intimidated by such allegation. Therefore, the statements made by the witnesses who reached the spot after the incident started, cannot be believed for framing a charge under section 3 (2) (v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 because he has not made any allegation that he was abusing on the ground that he belongs to Scheduled Caste. Therefore, the charge rran1ed under section 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is against the statements and FIR of the complainant, who never said that he was beaten on the ground that he belongs to Scheduled Caste. 5. The learned counsel for the applicant has cited judgments ill support of his arguments in the case of Ramdas v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2007 SC 155, Masumsha Husanasha Musalman v. State of Maharasthra AIR 2000 SC 1876 and the judgment of this Court in the case of Amir and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2004 (2) Vidhi Bhaswar 204 = 2005 (1) MPHT 411 , in which it has been held that when there is no evidence on record that victim was assaulted on the ground that he belonged to Scheduled Caste Community no charge can be framed. Hence, offence under section 3 (2) (v) of the Act, 1989 is not made out in the present case. 6. Therefore, the charge framed by the learned trial Court for an offence punishable under section 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 cannot said to be legal. Therefore, petition is allowed. The order so far as it relates to framing of charge under section 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is quashed. 7. Trial Court is directed to reconsider the matter afresh.