Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 409 (MP)

Rajendra Kumar Shukla v. State of M. P.

2011-03-31

G.S.SOLANKI

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. The appellant has preferred this appeal under section 374 (2) of CrPC being aggrieved by judgment dated 21.9.2006 passed by Special Judge (SC/ ST Act), Mandla in Special Case No. 26/06, whereby the appellant has been convicted under section 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and sentenced to RI for 6 months and fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulation. 2. The prosection's case in short is that on 24.5.2006 complainant Sunderlal Choudhary (PW 4) was posted on the post of BAC at Janpad Shiksha Kendra, Mawai. At the time of incident, some residential training was going on of all the teachers. The appellant reached at the Center at about 2.30 pm and demanded attendance register from the complainant, complainant refused to give him the register, on which some hot talk took place between them. The appellant told the complainant that "Chamra saley tumhe janta hu tum kahan ke ho". The complainant felt humiliated and lodged report (Exh. P-2) on the basis of which a case under section 294 of IPC and section 3 (1) (x) of the Act was registered against the appellant. 3. After usual investigation, appellant was charge-sheeted before th0 Trial Court Trial Court framed the charges under section 294 of IPC and section 3 (1) (x) of the Act. 4. The appellant abjured the guilt and pleaded that he has been falsely implicated in the case. 5. On appraisal of evidence on record, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as mentioned hereinabove, hence this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there was no intention of the appellant to insult or humiliate the complainant, however, during the hot talk, the appellant lost his temperament and inadvertently, used the word "Chamra ". He has placed reliance on a decision of Apex Court in Swaran Singh and others v. State through Standing Counsel and another, 2008 AIR SCW 5758. 7. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State has justified the findings recorded and supported the judgment passed by the Trial Court. 8. I have perused the impugned judgment, evidence and other material on record. Complainant Sunder Lal Choudhary (PW 4) deposed that he belongs to Chamar caste and appellant belongs to Brahmin caste. 7. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State has justified the findings recorded and supported the judgment passed by the Trial Court. 8. I have perused the impugned judgment, evidence and other material on record. Complainant Sunder Lal Choudhary (PW 4) deposed that he belongs to Chamar caste and appellant belongs to Brahmin caste. On 20.5.2006, he was posted on the post of BAC at Janpad Shiksha Kendra, Mawai where some training of teachers was going on, at about 2.00 pm., when he was sitting in his chamber with Amol Singh Parate (PW 5), appellant entered into his chamber and demanded the register for making his signatures. He has further deposed that since appellant came late, complainant refused to give him the register, then the appellant insisted that he wants to make signatures then and there. When complainant refused to give him the register, he told that 'Chamar sa ley tumhe janta hu tum kahan ke ho', thereafter, he went out side the chamber of complainant. Complainant further deposed that he suffered mental agony due to the words uttered by the appellant, therefore, he apprised the other colleagues like Raghuvir Singh Barkade (PW, I), Saiyad Jafar Ali (PW 2) and filed a written complaint (Exh. P-2). Amol Singh Parate (PW 5) substantially corroborated the version of the complainant. He deposed that the appellant uttered the aforesaid words. In these circumstances, it is amply proved that the appellant uttered the word chamar for the complainant. The apex Court in Swam Singh's case (supra), observed that calling a member of Scheduled Caste as. Chamar' with intent to insult or humiliate him in place within public view is certainly offence, however, whether there was intent to insult or humiliate by using word' Chamar' will of course depend on context in which it was used. Raghuvir Singh Barkade (PW 1) in his deposition Para 3 deposed that Sunderlal Choudhary informed him regarding the incident, then he came out of his cabin and talked to the appellant and appellant told him that he used the word 'Chamar' inadvertently. 9. From the aforesaid evidence it appears that there was a hot talk between appellant and complainant during which the appellant lost his temperament and uttered word 'Chamar' inadvertently. In this way, there was no intention oft 1e appellant to insult or humiliate the complainant. 9. From the aforesaid evidence it appears that there was a hot talk between appellant and complainant during which the appellant lost his temperament and uttered word 'Chamar' inadvertently. In this way, there was no intention oft 1e appellant to insult or humiliate the complainant. Thus, in my opinion, the trial Court committed illegality in not appreciating the evidence on record in its proper perspective. 10. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed. Conviction and sentence of the appellant is hereby set aside. He is acquitted from the charges under section 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Appellant is on bail, his bail bond and surety bond are hereby discharged.