Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 342 (CHH)

CHHEDI LAL v. STATE OF M. P.

2011-10-31

SUNIL KUMAR SINHA

body2011
JUDGMENT As per Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.:- 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10th of November, 1994, passed in Special Case No. 144/91 by the Special Judge, Raipur. 2. By the impugned judgment, the appellant has been convicted under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Special Act') and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 months. 3. The facts, briefly stated, are as under:- Complainant - Kheduram Banjare (PW-1) is a member of Satnami Scheduled Caste. On 19.3.1991, he went to the appellant for shaving, as the appellant used to perform the work of Barber. The allegations are that the appellant refused to shave the complainant on the ground that he is Satnami. He uttered that he would not shave a Chamar as they are of low caste. When the complainant went to the appellant, the appellant was cutting hair of Yashwant Kumar (PW-4). According to the complainant, Bhagvati Verma (PW-2) and Tilakram Verma (PW-3) were also present at the time of incident. The complainant lodged the F.I.R. (Ex. P/l), on which, the offence was registered. The learned Special Judge relied on the testimonies of complainant-Kheduram Banjare (PW-1) and Tilakram Verma (PW-3) and held that the appellant was liable for punishment under Section 3 (l) (x) of the Special Act. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that it was not established that the appellant was not a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe; complainant-Kheduram Banjare (PW-1) admitted that there was a party bandi in the village and the complainant and Tilakram Verma (PW-3) were the members of one party and the appellant was the member of other party, therefore, the appellant was falsely implicated on account of village rivalry; the learned Special Judge erred in law in placing reliance on the evidence of Kheduram Banjare (PW-l) and Tilakram Verma (PW-3). 5. On the other hand, Shri U.K.S. Chandel, learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the State, opposed these arguments and supported the judgment passed by the Special Judge. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the Special Case. 7. 5. On the other hand, Shri U.K.S. Chandel, learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the State, opposed these arguments and supported the judgment passed by the Special Judge. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the Special Case. 7. Section 3 (1) (x) of the Special Act provides that 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 pubic 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. It is apparent from the above provisions of Section 3 (1) (x) that the complainant should allege and prove that the accused was not a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and that the complainant was intentionally insulted or intimidated by the accused with intent to humiliate in a place within public view. 8. In case on hand, complainant Kheduram Banjare (PW-1), nowhere said that the accused was not a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Neither in the F.I.R. (Ex.P/l) nor in the Court deposition, the complainant has deposed about the caste of the appellant/accused. The evidence of Kheduram Banjare (PW-1) would show that he contended that the appellant/accused was a Barber. It is not necessary that a person performing the work of barber may not be a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Unless it is proved that the appellant was not a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, he cannot be punished for an offence under Section 3 (1) (x). In fact, this is one of the basic ingredients of the aforesaid offence. Please see Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others (2008) 12 SCC 531. 9. The learned Special Judge has placed reliance on the evidence of Kheduram Banjare (PW-1) and Tilakram Verma (PW-3). Kheduram Banjare (PW-1) admitted in the cross examination, paragraphs 7 and 8, that Jhaduram Verma was the Sarpanch of the village at the relevant time and later on, Bhanuram Verma became the village Sarpanch. A case relating to claim of crop was pending between them since last 7-8 years. Kheduram Banjare (PW-1) admitted in the cross examination, paragraphs 7 and 8, that Jhaduram Verma was the Sarpanch of the village at the relevant time and later on, Bhanuram Verma became the village Sarpanch. A case relating to claim of crop was pending between them since last 7-8 years. He very clearly admitted that Bhagvati Verma (PW-2) and Tilakram Verma (PW-3) were in the party of Bhanuram Verma and the appellant was in the party of Jhaduram Verma. However, he denied that he was tutored by Bhanuam Verma. The learned Special Judge completely lost sight of these facts. It is an admitted fact that when the complainant went to the appellant, the appellant was cutting the hair of Yashwant Kumar (PW-4). This has been admitted by Kheduram Banjare (PW-1) in para 2 of his evidence. Therefore, presence of Yashwant Kumar (PW-4) at the place of occurrence cannot be doubted. Yashwant Kumar (PW-4) did not depose about any such incident, as alleged by the complainant. 10. False reports on the village rivalry on the basis of party bandi are not uncommon. I am of the view that the testimonies of the witnesses should have been examined, keeping in mind, the above facts also, which the Special Judge did not do. There was no reason to not believe the evidence of Yashwant Kumar (PW-4). If the things would have happened in the manner as have been alleged by the complainant, Yashwant Kumar (PW-4) must have deposed about them. Yashwant Kumar (PW-4) has not been declared hostile. 11. For the foregoing reasons, I am unable to sustain the conviction of the appellant on the above set of evidence. I am of the view that the learned Special Judge fell into error by convicting the appellant under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Special Act, which deserves to be set aside. 12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Special Act are set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge framed against him. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and surety stands discharged. Appeal Allowed.