Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 266 (CHH)

Madanlal Jaiswal v. State of Chhattisgarh

2012-10-08

RADHE SHYAM SHARMA

body2012
JUDGMENT This appeal is directed against judgment dated 4-11-2004 passed by Special Judge under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (henceforth the Act, 1989), Ambikapur (Surguja) in Special Case No. 107/2003. By the impugned judgment, accused/appellant Madanlal Jaiswal has been convicted under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, 1989 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for 1 month. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under : Ramvriksha Ram (P.W. 1) is Ghasiya by caste and belongs to Scheduled Caste. He was posted as Forest Guard in Mahuli Forest Beat Area. Smt. Kespati Bai (P.W. 5) was Vice-President of Kolhua Forest Committee. On 15-2-2003, Ramvriksha Ram (P.W. 1) went to the house of Smt. Kespati Bai (P.W. 5) for discussion regarding Government work which was carried out in the forest area. At that time, the appellant and one Arjunram Shukla came there. The appellant abused Ramvriksha Ram (P.W. 1), uttered obscene words against Ramvriksha Ram (P.W. 1) and threatened to him. Ramvriksha Ram (P.W. 1) made written complaint (Ex. P-1) in Police Station Chandani, on the basis of which FIR (Ex. P-1A) was registered in Police Station Chandani and thereafter FIR (Ex. P-3) was recorded in Police Station Ajak (Ambikapur). During the investigation, caste certificate (Ex. P-2) of Ramvriksha Ram (P.W. 1) was obtained and spot map (Ex. P-7) was prepared. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur, who, in turn, committed the case to the Court of Special Judge under the Act, 1989, Ambikapur, who conducted the trial and convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above. 3. Ms. Hamida Siddique and Shri B. P. Banjare, learned counsel for the appellant argued that there is no evidence on record to show that Ramvriksha Ram (P.W. 1) belongs to Scheduled Caste. The prosecution utterly failed to prove the caste of Ramvriksha Ram (P.W. 1). The caste certificate produced by the prosecution is issued by Sarpanch who is not a competent authority therefor. Therefore, the prosecution has not been able to prove the caste of Ramvriksha Ram (P.W. 1). Nothing was done with intention and knowledge that Ramvriksha Ram (P.W. 1) belongs to Scheduled Caste. The caste certificate produced by the prosecution is issued by Sarpanch who is not a competent authority therefor. Therefore, the prosecution has not been able to prove the caste of Ramvriksha Ram (P.W. 1). Nothing was done with intention and knowledge that Ramvriksha Ram (P.W. 1) belongs to Scheduled Caste. There is absolutely no evidence which shows that the alleged act was done by the appellant simply because Ramvriksha Ram (P.W. 1) belongs to Scheduled Caste. Learned counsel further argued that the appellant has been falsely implicated. The FIR was lodged at belated stage and the delay has not been properly explained by the prosecution. Therefore, the appellant deserves to be acquitted. Learned counsel placed reliance on Khamhan and others v. State of M.P. 2012 (1) CGLJ 48 , Milauram v. State of M.P. 2011 (3) CGLJ 426 and Mafidar v. State of M.P. 2011 (2) CGLJ 212 . 4. On the other hand, Shri R. R. Sinha, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent, supporting the impugned judgment, submitted that the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Special Judge do not warrant any interference by this Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of Special Case No. 107/2003. The conviction of the appellant is based on the evidence of Ramvriksha Ram (P.W. 1). 6. The charge-sheet was filed against the appellant under Sections 294 and 506, IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, 1989. Learned Special Judge framed charges against the appellant under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, 1989 read with Sections 294 and 506, IPC. Learned Special Judge convicted the appellant under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, 1989 and acquitted him of charges under Sections 294 and 506, IPC. 7. To hold the appellant guilty, the prosecution examined Ramvriksha Ram (P.W. 1), Ramlal (P.W. 2), Sub-Inspector B.R. Singh (P.W. 3), Chhotelal (P.W. 4), Smt. Kespati Bai (P.W. 5), Atmaram (P.W. 6), Ransai (P.W. 7), Tenaram Bhagat (P.W. 8) and SDO (P) S. S. Rajput (P.W. 9). The appellant did not examine any witness in his defence. 8. Ramvriksha Ram (P.W. 1) deposed that he is Ghasiya by caste which belongs to Scheduled Caste. Ransai (P.W. 7) deposed that he was Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Mahuli. He further deposed that he issued the caste certificate (Ex. P-2) of Ramvriksha Ram (P.W. 1). The appellant did not examine any witness in his defence. 8. Ramvriksha Ram (P.W. 1) deposed that he is Ghasiya by caste which belongs to Scheduled Caste. Ransai (P.W. 7) deposed that he was Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Mahuli. He further deposed that he issued the caste certificate (Ex. P-2) of Ramvriksha Ram (P.W. 1). According to the caste certificate, Ramvriksha Ram (P.W. 1) belongs to Scheduled Caste. 9. Admittedly, in the instant case, the cast certificate (Ex. P-2) submitted by the prosecution is issued by the Sarpanch, who is not a competent authority therefor. The prosecution did not submit caste certificate of complainant Ramvriksha Ram (P.W. 1) issued by a Tahsildar or an SDO who are competent authorities therefor. From perusal of the evidence of Ramvriksha Ram (P.W. 1) and Ransai (P.W. 7), it is clear that prosecution did not produce caste certificate of Ramvriksha Ram (P.W. 1) issued by a competent authority, therefore, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the caste of complainant Ramvriksha Ram (P.W. 1) and the appellant did not admit the fact that complainant Ramvriksha Ram (P.W. 1) belongs to Scheduled Caste. 10. Ramvriksha Ram (P.W. 1) deposed that on 15-2-2003, he went to the house of Smt. Kespati Bai (P.W. 5) and he sat inside the house. After 10-15 minutes, the appellant and Arjun came there and the appellant uttered filthy language and obscene words against him. He further deposed that the appellant abused him and threatened to kill him. The appellant uttered the following words : (Vernacular matter omitted.....Ed.) 11. Clause (x) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act, 1989 runs thus : 3. Punishments for offences of atrocities. (1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (x) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view; 12. Looking to the Clause (x) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act, 1989, it appears that the abusive or obscene words must be uttered within public view. 13. Ramlal (P.W. 2), Chhotelal (P.W. 4) and Smt. Kespati Bai (P.W. 5) deposed that Ramvriksha Ram (P.W. 1) was sitting inside the house of Smt. Kespati Bai (P.W. 5). None of them corroborated the evidence of Ramvriksha Ram (P.W. 1). 13. Ramlal (P.W. 2), Chhotelal (P.W. 4) and Smt. Kespati Bai (P.W. 5) deposed that Ramvriksha Ram (P.W. 1) was sitting inside the house of Smt. Kespati Bai (P.W. 5). None of them corroborated the evidence of Ramvriksha Ram (P.W. 1). Ramvriksha Ram (P.W. 1) specifically deposed that he was sitting in the house of Smt. Kespati Bai (P.W. 5), the appellant came there and uttered abusive words against him in the courtyard of the house of Smt. Kespati Bai (P.W. 5). 14. The incident took place inside the house of Smt. Kespati Bai (P.W. 5), which does not fall within public view. For the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, 1989, it is essential that the incident must have taken place within public view. In the instant case, the incident did not take place within public view. Taking all these aspects together, I am of the view that ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are not attracted. Therefore, the appellant cannot be convicted under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, 1989 and his conviction thereunder is liable to be set aside. 15. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charge framed against him. He is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties stand discharged. Appeal allowed.