Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 19 (MP)

Ramesh v. State of M. P.

2012-01-04

U.C.MAHESHWARI

body2012
Judgment 1. Initially this appeal was preferred by the appellants namely; Bakhtawar Singh appellant No. 1 (since deceased) and Ramesh appellant No. 2 being aggrieved by the judgment dated 16-5-2002 passed by Special Judge, Raisen [constituted under the provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act)], (in short 'the Act'), in Special Case No. 57/2000, convicting to each of them under Sections 45 1, 294, 323 and 506 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act for RI 6 months with fine of Rs. 100/- in the first count, only fine of Rs. 100/- in the second count, fine of Rs. 500/- in the third count, fine of Rs. 200/- in the fourth count and for RI 6 months with fine of Rs. 200/- in the last count. In pendency of this appeal, on account of death of appellant No. 1 Bakhtawar Singh, his name was deleted, in such premises, this appeal is being decided in connection of appellant No. 2 Ramesh. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that the complainant-victim Hari Singh (P.W. 1) gave a report in writing on dated 2-7-2000 at Police Station, Harijan Kalyan Thana, Raisen, on which a Crime No. 9/2000 was registered against the appellants for the offence of Sections 451, 294. 323, 506, 334 of IPC and Section 3(1) (x) of the Act. As per averments of such report, on dated 30-6-2000 in between 2-3 o'clock in the noon when the complainant Hari Singh sleeping on a open courtyard of his house, at the same time, the deceased appellant No. 1 and the appellant No. 2 came there and after abusing him with filthy languages, the appellant No. 2 gave him a blow of stick on his vest. In order to save, the complainant ran away from such place then, he was subjected to other blows of sticks by both the appellants resultantly, he sustained the injuries in his both the legs and fell down. Thereafter, he was beaten by the appellants with fists and kicks. On asking the reason by the complainant for such beating, then he was told by them that he is going to become 'Dada' and yesterday when some talk was going on with Gopal, at that time, his attitude with them was very arrogant. Thereafter, he was beaten by the appellants with fists and kicks. On asking the reason by the complainant for such beating, then he was told by them that he is going to become 'Dada' and yesterday when some talk was going on with Gopal, at that time, his attitude with them was very arrogant. At the; same time on hearing the shouts, the aunt of the complainant Janki Bai (P.W. 3) and another villager namely Phoolwati (P.W. 4) came and rescue him on which by abusing him with filthy languages in the name of the caste of the complainant "Goiulia ", the appellants went away from such place. As per further averments, the criminal intimidation to kill him was also given to the complainant and due to said fear, he did not come to the Police Station immediately to lodge the report and subsequently, accompanied with his brother Anant Ram and some other persons, has come to the Police Station to give the report in writing. On which after registering the offence the victim was sent to the hospital where his MLC report was prepared in which, two contusions and two abrasions were found on his person. On completion of the investigation, the appellants were charge-sheeted for the offence of Sections 451, 294, 323, 506/34 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act. 3. On evaluation of the charge-sheet, the charge of Sections 451/34, 294/34, 323/34, 506/34 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act were framed against the appellants. They abjured the guilt on which, the trial was held. On appreciation of the same, both the accused were held guilty for the abovementioned offence and punished with sentence as mentioned above on which, the appellant has come to this Court with this appeal. 4. Shri Rajneesh Choubey, learned appearing Counsel for the appellant No. 2 after taking me through the record of the Trial Court as well as the impugned judgment argued that on taking into consideration the entire evidence led by the prosecution on it's face value as accepted in it's entirety even then, the charge of Section 3(1) (x) of the Act, is not made out. In continuation, he said that in the lack of admissible evidence showing that the alleged act was committed by the appellant or the deceased appellant with the victim-complainant with intention to humiliate him on account of his caste at the place of the public view, the appellant could not be convicted under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act. In such premises, the conviction of the appellant in such Section and its awarded jail sentence is not sustainable in the matter. He further argued that undisputedly the alleged incident took place inside the premises of the victim-complainant where he was sleeping and such place could not be deemed to be in a public view. In any case, in the lack of any specific evidence on the record showing that the language and abuses which was used by the appellants had annoyed the victim or some other persons present there, the appellant could not have been convicted by the Trial Court for the offence of Section 294 of IPC. He further argued that the story putforth by the prosecution has not been supported by any independent source of evidence or the witnesses and whosoever has been examined in support of the prosecution case, they being interested witnesses from the family of the victim, mere on their testimony the impugned conviction of the appellant under Sections 451, 323 and 506 of IPC could not be sustained. According to his further submission, the enmity factor of the appellant and the victim as day before the incident some unhappy incident had taken place between them, has not been considered by the Trial Court. On proper appreciation of such circumstances, the appellant ought to have been acquitted under such section and prayed for extending the acquittal to the appellant from all the charges. On proper appreciation of such circumstances, the appellant ought to have been acquitted under such section and prayed for extending the acquittal to the appellant from all the charges. In alternative, he prayed that in qase, after acquittal from the charge of Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act, the conviction of the appellant in other Sections is upheld then, taking into consideration the alleged incident took place long before 11 years and the appellant did not have any criminal antecedents or the history and in such premises, he being first offender, the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, be extended to him otherwise, in any case, the appellant No. 2 be punished with the jail punishment for which he has already undergone between 26-12-2011 till today, i.e., near about one month by imposing the amount of fine under the discretion of the Court. In such premises, the awarded jail sentence under Section 451 of IPC be reduced from 6 months RI to the aforesaid period and prayed for allowing this appeal accordingly. 5. On the other hand, Shri Kesherwani, learned Panel Lawyer by justifying the impugned conviction of the appellant submits that the same being based on proper appreciation of the evidence, do not require any interference at this stage. In continuation, he said that there is sufficient proof on the record that the victim was abused with filthy languages by the appellants by taking the name of his caste with intention to humiliate him because, he is belonging to some Tribal Community and in such premises prayed for dismissal of this appeal. 6. Having heard the Counsel at length, keeping in view their arguments, I have carefully gone through the record of the Trial Court along with the impugned judgment. 7. In order to prove the case on behalf of the prosecution as many as four witnesses have been examined. 6. Having heard the Counsel at length, keeping in view their arguments, I have carefully gone through the record of the Trial Court along with the impugned judgment. 7. In order to prove the case on behalf of the prosecution as many as four witnesses have been examined. Out of them, Hari Singh (P.W. 1) the victim, on recording his deposition he categorically stated that on the date of the incident he was sleeping in the courtyard of his house at the same time, the presennippellant and the deceased appellant No. 1, armed with sticks entered in his courtyard and after abusing him with filthy languages, the appellant No. 2 Ramesh, gave the first blow on his vest and when he tried to ran away from such place then, again he was subjected to blows of sticks by both the appellants on his legs resultantly, he sustained the injuries on his legs and fell down then, he was rescued by Janki Bai (P.W. 2) and Phoolwati Bai (P.W. 3). He further stated that after carrying out his beating, he was abused by the appellants with filthy languages and also named of his caste 'Gondia' and he was also subjected to criminal intimidation for his life. But, it is apparent from his deposition that initially such incident took place at the place inside some part of his house which could not be said to be in public view and whatsoever filthy languages has been used by the appellant, the same had created any annoyance either to himself or to other persons present there the same has also not been stated by him, so, in the lack of these two material ingredients in the deposition of the victim himself, the conviction of the appellant under Section 294 of IPC could not be sustained at this stage. So far as the conviction under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act is concerned, it is apparent on the record that day before the incident, in the course of some talk with Gopal, due to behaviour of the victim with the appellant there was some enmity between them and such enmity factor was the cause of the alleged incident and it appears from the deposition of Hari Singh that initially he was not subjected to abuse with the name of his community or was abused with intention to humiliate on account of his community so in such premises, no inference could have been drawn by the Trial Court that the victim was humiliated or abused by the appellants on account of his caste. So, the conviction of the appellant under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act is also not sustainable and deserves to be set aside. 8. Coming to consider the sustainability of conviction of the appellant under Sections 323,451 and 506 of IPC are concerned, as per aforesaid discussions, the complainant-victim Hari Singh (P.W. 1) on recording his deposition he categorically stated that with intention to commit the offence the appellant armed with sticks entered in his courtyard and thereafter, he was subjected to blow of sticks by both the appellants by which he sustained the injuries. His testimony is further supported by Dr. M.I. Khan (P.W. 4), who medically examined the victim and prepared his MLC Report (Exh. P-6). Such testimony of the victim is also supported by the eye-witnesses of the incident namely; Janki Bai (P.W. 2) and Phoolwati Bai (P.W. 3), who on recording their deposition said that after entering into the house of the victim, the appellants gave the blows of sticks on the person of the victim by which, he sustained the injury, they further stated that before leaving the place, the appellants also gave a criminal threat to kill the victim. So in such premises, the approach of the Trial Court convicting the appellants for the offence of Sections 451,323 and 506 of IPC being based on proper appreciation of evidence. could not be said to be faulty in any manner. So, in such premises, to this extent, the findings of the Trial Court holding conviction under Sections 451, 323 and 506 of IPC are hereby affirmed. 9. could not be said to be faulty in any manner. So, in such premises, to this extent, the findings of the Trial Court holding conviction under Sections 451, 323 and 506 of IPC are hereby affirmed. 9. Coming to consider the prayer of the appellant's Counsel for extending the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act is concerned, although, the appellant appears to be the first offender and did not have any criminal antecedents or history, but looking to the nature of the incident in the available facts and circumstances of the case in which sole victim was beaten with sticks by two appellants, I do not found fit to extent such benefit of Probation to the appellant. Consequently, such prayer is hereby rejected. 10. Coming to consider the alternative prayer of the appellant's Counsel for reducing the jail sentence of the appellant under Section 451 of IPC is concerned, 1 have found some substance in it. Undisputedly, the alleged incident took place in the year 2000 and since the date of the incident till today, the appellant has suffered mental agony of the impugned case and also suffered the jail sentence between 26-12-2011 till today as on account of his non-appearance in compliance of his bail order passed earlier by this Court in the present matter, he was taken into custody under execution of the non-bailable warrant, I deem fit to reduce his awarded jail sentence under Section 451 of IPC from 6 months RI to the aforesaid period, i.e., near about one month for which he has already suffered the jail by enhancing some amount of fine from Rs. 100/- to Rs. 500/-. The same is ordered. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussions, by affirming the conviction of the appellant No. 2 Ramesh under Sections 451, 323, 506 of IPC, this appeal is allowed in part and the appellant is acquitted from the charge of Section 294 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act. Pursuant to it, the awarded punishment under such sections are also set aside. Pursuant to it, the awarded punishment under such sections are also set aside. The appellant has been convicted and sentenced under Sections 323 and 506 of IPC only with fine, the same is hereby maintained while, as per aforesaid discussions, the jail sentence of the appellant awarded under Section 451 of IPC is hereby reduced from 6 months RI to the aforesaid period between 26-12-2011 till today by enhancing the amount of fine from Rs. 100/- to Rs. 500/-. The enhanced fine amount is to be deposited by the appellant No. 2 within 60 days from today failing which, the appellant has to suffer further two months SI. The amount of fine deposited in connection of Section 294 of IPC and Section 3(1) (x) of the Act, shall be adjusted in the aforesaid enhanced fine amount. The bail bonds of the appellant No. 2 is hereby discharged. 12. Appeal is allowed in part as indicated above.