Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 56 (CHH)

MILAURAM v. STATE OF M. P.

2011-02-10

PRITINKER DIWAKER

body2011
JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 31.3.1997 passed by Special Judge, Raipur in Special Criminal Case No. 321/1996 convicting the accused/appellant under Section 3 (1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the accused/appellant had sold about two acres of his land to the complainant for a consideration of Rs.1,75,000/- out of which Rs.78,500/- were paid by the complainant and registration of the land was executed. When the complainant applied for mutation, on 27.12.1997 R.S. Sonpipre, Nayab Tahsildar (PW-2) came to village Paragaon for inspection of the land and recording the statement. It is alleged that when the statement of the complainant was being recorded, accused/appellant had made the utterance that ^^lkys pejk >wB cksy jgk gS** . On hearing this, the complainant became tense. On 28.12.1995 a letter (Ex.P-1) was written by the complainant to the Collector Raipur seeking action against the accused/appellant. Copy of this letter was also forwarded to the Minister, Superintendent of Police, Commissioner, S.H.O. and Sarpanch. This letter appears to have been forwarded by the S.P. office to the concerned police station and after preliminary enquiry offence was registered under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. After completing investigation, challan was filed on 22.5.1996 under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the accused/appellant. 3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, prosecution has examined 03 witnesses in support or its case. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charges levelled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. 4. Counsel for the appellant submits that the accused/appellant has been falsely implicated just because the complainant was not interested to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 96,500/- against the land purchased by his wife. 4. Counsel for the appellant submits that the accused/appellant has been falsely implicated just because the complainant was not interested to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 96,500/- against the land purchased by his wife. He submits that the complainant had not even lodged the report in the concerned police station and directly approached the Collector and various higher authorities just because he was self proclaimed President of All India Samta Sainik Dal, Paragaon, Arang, Raipur. He submits that when the words "Sale chamar" has not been used with an intention to humiliate the complaint, the appellant cannot be convicted under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. He further submits that even Nayab Tahsildar R.S. Sonpipre (PW-2) has not fully supported the case of the prosecution. 5. On the other hand, it has been argued by the state counsel that conviction of the accused/appellant is fully justified and the same is in accordance with law. He submits that the complainant was abused by the accused/appellant within public view and thus the offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out. 6. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including judgment impugned. 7. Written report (Ex.P-1) dated 28.12.1995 has been made by the complainant using letter head of All India Samta Sainik Dal, Paragaon showing himself to be a President of the said All India Samta Sainik Dal, Paragaon. This report has been addressed to the Collector and copy of which has also been forwarded to the Chief Minister, Minister of concerned department, Commissioner (Anushuchit Jati & Jan Jati Vibhag), 5.P. and other higher authorities. In the subject column of the complaint it has been mentioned that at the time of cross-examination of the complainant, the appellant has used words “sale chamra”. While describing the incident, complainant has stated that when the Tahsildar was enquiring into the matter, unconstitutional words were used by the accused/appellant in the presence of Tahsildarl Up-sarpanch, Panch and other villagers as a result of which he had suffered mental agony. While deposing in the court, complainant Ishwar Lal (PW-1) has stated that the appellant is, ‘Dheemer’ by caste whereas his caste is Mahar which comes under the category of Scheduled Caste. While deposing in the court, complainant Ishwar Lal (PW-1) has stated that the appellant is, ‘Dheemer’ by caste whereas his caste is Mahar which comes under the category of Scheduled Caste. He has further stated that he is doing agricultural work in a field which he had taken from the accused/appellant and the registry of the said land has already been done but the mutation proceedings are pending. He has further stated that on 27.12.1995 Naib Tahsildar R.S. Sonpipre (PW-2) had visited village Paragaon and recorded the statement of the accused/ appellant and then he had also called him and this exercise was done in respect of the certification of the land. He has also stated that when the Naib Tahsildar was making enquiry from him, accused/appellant had said "Sale, Chamra Jhuth Bol raha hai, Saheb” and on account of this, he became tense because he was abused by the accused/appellant in presence of everyone. He has further stated that he had asked the Tahsildar to see as to how the accused/appellant was abusing him and then Tahsildar made accused understand that he should not do like this. He has further stated that after completing the entire investigation, Tahsildar had asked 'him to go. In the cross-examination, he has admitted the fact that the land in question was purchased by him in the name of his wife from the accused/appellant for a consideration of Rs.1,75,000/- and at the time of registry the amount of Rs.78,500/- was given to the appellant. He has further admitted the fact that the proceedings were pending before the court of Tahsiidar in which the accused/appellant had stated that he has not received the entire amount and, therefore, he will not permit any certification of the land. He has further admitted the fact that he has not lodged any report in the police station Arang which is 5 kms. away from his village and on the second day, he had filed written report (Ex.P-1). He has also admitted the fact that in the written report (Ex.P-1) there is no mention of words "Sale Chamra Jhuth Bol raha hai, Saheb”. He has also admitted the fact that after 4-5 months, the police came to enquire the matter, where for the first time, he had informed the police about using of word “Chamra sale” by the appellant. 8. He has also admitted the fact that after 4-5 months, the police came to enquire the matter, where for the first time, he had informed the police about using of word “Chamra sale” by the appellant. 8. R.S. Sonpipre (PW-2) - Nayab Tahsildar has stated in his evidence that he had gone to village Paragaon after receiving a complaint from the complainant to the effect that some persons were likely to assault him and, therefore, enquiry be made and during enquiry words “Sale Chamar” was used by the accused/appellant. He has further stated that abusive word used by the accused/appellant was not indecent but thereafter, he had asked the accused/appellant not to use such language because even he was feeling bad for this word. He has admitted the fact that he was not aware about the caste of the complainant and the mutation case is pending before his court. In para 4 of his cross-examination he has admitted the fact that he had not informed the police to the effect that he had gone to village Paragaon for enquiry in respect of the complaint made by the complainant showing apprehension of some incident. He has also admitted the fact that some dispute in respect of the payment of remaining amount of the land purchased by the wife of the complainant is pending. In paragraph 9 of his cross examination he has stated that when the statement of the complainant was being recorded, the appellant had used the word “Sale chamra” but he had not uttered those words to the complainant and he cannot tell as to for whom the word “sale chamra” was used. Sub Inspector P.P. Singh (PW-3) is the Investigating Officer who has supported the case of the prosecution. 9. True it is that calling a member of Scheduled Caste "chamar" with intent to insult or humiliate him in a place within public view is certainly an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. Whether there was intent to insult or humiliate by using the word "chamar" will of course depend on the context in which it was used. Furthermore while viewing the entire evidence, the court has to come to the conclusion as to in what context the word “Chamra” has been used. Whether there was intent to insult or humiliate by using the word "chamar" will of course depend on the context in which it was used. Furthermore while viewing the entire evidence, the court has to come to the conclusion as to in what context the word “Chamra” has been used. Further from the evidence it should be reflected that by using word "Chamar", the complainant has been insulted or intimidated or humiliated in any manner. In the case in hand, it has been nowhere stated by the complainant that the words ‘sale chamar’ were used by the accused/appellant with an intention to insult or intimidate or to humiliate him. Furthermore, R.S. Sonpipre (PW-2) - Nayab Tahsildar has also categorically stated in paragraph 9 of his cross examination that when the statement of the complainant was being recorded, the appellant had used the word 'sale chamra' but he had not uttered those words to the complainant and he cannot tell as to whom the word' sale chamra' was used. From the evidence of this witness and that of complainant it is apparent that the complainant had purchased some land of the accused/appellant in the name of his wife and there was some dispute in respect of the outstanding payment of the said land and thus the possibility of false implication also cannot be ruled out. Thus, on the basis of evidence adduced by the complainant it is difficult to uphold the conviction of the accused/appellant under the provision of the special Act. 10. Considering the evidence of the complainant (PW-1) and the Naib Tahsildar (PW-2) and the entire material including the written report (Ex.P5), this court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all the reasonable doubts and in these circumstances the benefit of doubt must go to the accused/appellant. 11. In conclusion, the appeal is allowed; Impugned judgment dated 31.3.1997 is hereby set aside. Appellant is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. Since appellant is already on bail, his bail bonds stand discharged. Appeal Allowed.