Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 211 (CHH)

BUDHRAM @ BHATKHAUWA v. STATE OF M. P.

2012-08-22

PRITINKER DIWAKER

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. This appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 30.10.96 passed by the Special Judge, Bilaspur in Special Criminal Case No. 109/1996 convicting the accused/appellant under Section 3(1)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (in short "the Act") and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.300, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that on 14.2.93; written report (Ex.P3) was lodged by complainant Kanhaiya (PW-2) alleging that he had pledged a house with the accused/appellant for Rs.700 from him and when he went to repay the interest amount, accused/appellant refused to accept the same. Subsequently, the appellant is said to have changed the direction of the door of his house. It is alleged that the accused/appellant had also not accepted the decision of the panchayat. Based on this report, Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P-4) was recorded on 3.3.93 and after enquiry on 1.4.93 FIR (Ex.P-6) was lodged against the appellant under Section 3(1)(v) of the Act. 3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, prosecution has examined three witnesses. 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. This apart, one defence witness has also been examined. 4. After hearing the parties, the trial Court has convicted the accused/ appellant for the offence as mentioned above. Hence this appeal. 5. Contention of Shri Sahu, counsel for the appellant is that there is no legally admissible evidence in respect of the caste of the complainant and the prosecution has failed to prove his caste by producing any documentary evidence to this effect. He further submits that the accused/appellant had merely accepted the caste of the complainant to be Karra but the prosecution has failed to prove that Karra caste falls within the category of SC/ST and no question to this effect was put to the appellant. It has been further argued that the dispute between accused/appellant and the complainant was of purely civil nature and taking advantage of his caste, the complainant has falsely implicated the accused/appellant. 6. It has been further argued that the dispute between accused/appellant and the complainant was of purely civil nature and taking advantage of his caste, the complainant has falsely implicated the accused/appellant. 6. On the other hand, it has been argued by Shri Gwalre, State counsel that the judgment impugned is strictly in accordance with law and there is no infirmity in the same. He however admits that there is no evidence to show the caste of the complainant falls within the category of SC/ST. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the judgment impugned. 8. Complainant Kanhaiya (PW-2) in his statement has stated that he had borrowed money from accused/appellant by pledging his house with him. He has stated that when he went to repay the said amount, accused/appellant refused to accept the same by saying that the said house belonged to him. Thereafter he went to Panch/Patel of the village but his request was not accepted by the accused/appellant. In cross-examination he has admitted the fact that he did not have any written document regarding transaction between him and the accused/appellant. He has further admitted the fact that he had never paid any interest to the accused/appellant or had issued any legal notice to him. He has denied the fact that the house in question was in possession of his cousin. He has stated that for his livelihood he had left the said village and was not residing there. Dhani Ram (PW -1) has stated that he knew the accused/ appellant and the complainant and that two years prior to recording of his court statement accused/appellant had given Rs.700 to the complainant who in turn pledged his house with him. He has stated that the complainant had gone to the accused/appellant to pay Rs.1150 but he refused to accept the same by saying that he was to pay Rs.1600. He has stated that the accused/appellant was in possession of the house in question. He has admitted the fact that after taking money from the accused/appellant and pledging his house, he left the village. R.L. Singh (PW-J) is the Investigating Officer who has duly supported the case of prosecution. 9. He has stated that the accused/appellant was in possession of the house in question. He has admitted the fact that after taking money from the accused/appellant and pledging his house, he left the village. R.L. Singh (PW-J) is the Investigating Officer who has duly supported the case of prosecution. 9. Minute examination of the evidence makes it clear that there is no documentary evidence on record in relation to the caste of the complainant or that Karra caste comes within the category of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. In his, court statement, the complainant has not stated that he belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe category and that he has been dispossessed simply because he belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. In order to constitute the offence under the provisions of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, it is imperative on the part of the prosecution to prove that the victim is a member of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe community whereas the accused does not belong to any such category. The prosecution is also obliged to prove that the accused has committed the offence on the ground that the particular person is a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community or the property in question belongs to such member. Complainant Kanhaiya (PW-2) has no where stated that he is a member of either Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and he has merely stated that by caste he belongs to Karra. He has no where, stated that persons belonging to Karra caste fall within Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community nor any document has been produced to indicate the same. 10. Considering the totality of the evidence, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case beyond all the reasonable doubts and thus the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court convicting the accused/appellant under section 3(1)(v) of the Act is hereby set aside. Accused/appellant is acquitted of the said charge levelled against him. As the accused/appellant is reported to be on bail, his bail bonds stand discharged. Appeal Allowed.