Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 226 (MP)

Summera Teli v. State of M. P.

2011-02-15

G.S.SOLANKI

body2011
JUDGMENT G.S. Solanki, J. 1. The Appellants have preferred this appeal against the impugned judgment and finding dated 5.12.1995 passed by the learned Special Judge, Panna in Special Criminal Case No. 9 of 1994 whereby Appellants have been convicted under Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for one year and fine of Rs. 1,000/- (each), with default stipulations. 2. Facts of the prosecution case in short are that on 29.1.1994 at about 1.00 a.m. complainant Kodu Ahirwar (PW1) and is wife Radhabai (PW2) were working on the road of Shahnagar, Appellant No. 2, Chhota Teli came there and abused complainant by saying "chamra" and tried to prevent them from working on the road. It is further alleged that Chhota Teli assaulted Kodulal by means of spade (Fawda). On the hue and cry, Radhabai, wife of the complainant, came to rescue her husband, then Appellant No. 1, Summera assaulted her by a lathi. Villagers Swaroopa Choudhary (PW5) and Kallua Choudhary (PW3) saved them. According to the complainant, Appellants/accused humiliated him on the basis of caste and threatened him not to report the matter to the police. Kodulal lodged the report Ex.P/1 at police station Ajak, Panna. Injured persons were sent for medical examination. Dr. Sharad Dwivedi (PW4) examined them and found simple injuries on their persons and prepared the MLC reports Ex.P/6 and Ex.P/7 respectively. 3. After usual investigation, the Appellants were charge sheeted before the Special Court Panna. 4. Learned Special Judge framed the charges against the Appellants under Sections 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellants abjured the guilt and pleaded that they have been falsely implicated. 5. On appraisal of evidence on record, trial court convicted and sentenced the Appellants, as mentioned herein above. Hence this appeal. 6. Learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that trial Court had failed to appreciate the evidence in its true perspective. It is further submitted that prosecution failed to prove the fact that Appellants have humiliated the complainant. He further submitted that mere use the name of caste is not amount to intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, therefore, he prays for set aside the impugned judgment and finding recorded by the trial Court. 7. He further submitted that mere use the name of caste is not amount to intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, therefore, he prays for set aside the impugned judgment and finding recorded by the trial Court. 7. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer formally objected the contention raised by the Appellants. 8. I have perused the impugned judgment, evidence and other material on record. 9. Kodu Ahirwar (PW1) deposed that when he was working at road both Appellants came over there and Appellant Chhota assaulted him by spade "Fawda". He further deposed that when his wife Radhabai came to rescue him, she was assaulted by Appellant Summera by lathi. He further deposed that Appellants abused humiliated them. 10. Independent witnesses Kallua (PW3) and Swaroopa (PW5) have not supported the version of complainant Kodulal. Kallua (PW3) was declared hostile but nothing in his deposition to support the case of prosecution. Swaroopa (PW5) only supported to the fact that Appellants were present on the spot and both the Appellants scolded the complainant, therefore he fell down on the spot. 11. Radhabai (PW2) also deposed that primarily Appellant Chhota assaulted her husband by means of spade "Fawda". Appellant Summera assaulted her by a lathi and then they abused and humiliated them. The exact words of abuse are not find place in FIR Ex.P/1. In these circumstances, mere use of word 'Chamra' can not be said to humiliation the complainant. 12. On careful scanning of the evidence of complainant, Kodu (PW1) and Radhabai (PW2), it reveal that it was a dispute on the work for spreading the 'moorum' on road and Appellant Chhota assaulted Kodu by spade and he received injuries on his body. Appellant Summera assaulted Radhabai, who received injury on his wrist. This fact is duly corroborated by the medical evidence of Dr. Sharad Dwivedi (PW4) and further corroborated by FIR Ex.P/1. In these circumstances, trial Court committed the illegality in not appreciating the evidence on record in its true perspective and convicted the Appellants under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act instead under Section 323 of IPC. 13. Thus, the appeal is partly allowed. Sharad Dwivedi (PW4) and further corroborated by FIR Ex.P/1. In these circumstances, trial Court committed the illegality in not appreciating the evidence on record in its true perspective and convicted the Appellants under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act instead under Section 323 of IPC. 13. Thus, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction and sentence awarded by trial Court under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act is hereby set aside but prosecution has succeeded to prove the offence under Section 323 of IPC against the Appellant No. 1 Summera, causing simple injury to Radhabai and against Appellant No. 2 Chhota, causing simple injury to Kodu Ahirwar, therefore, they are held guilty under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced them to the fine of Rs. 1,000/-. 14. The Appellants are on bail. Their bail bond and surety bond stand cancelled. 15. The fine amount of Rs. 1,000/- already deposited by the Appellants in connection with other crime which will be treated as fine under Section of IPC.