Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 318 (MP)

Dashrath v. State of M. P.

2012-03-19

S.R.WAGHMARE

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. The appeal has been filed under section 374 of the CrPC by the appellant Dashrath being aggrieved by judgment dated 13.5.2005 passed by the Special Sessions Judge, Mandsaur in S.S.T. No. 4/2005 on 13.5.2005 convicting the accused for offence under section 3 (1) (x) of the SC/ST Act and sentencing him to 6 months RI with fine of Rs. 100/- in case of failure to pay the fine, the appellant was to undergo an additional sentence of 7 days RI. 2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 6.9.2004 Guddibai was returning from Takrawad Gram Nayalaya along with her husband on motorcycle to her village Garovad, when near the school the accused was sitting on a tractor and reversed it suddenly and her husband switched on the horn to stop the tractor, but the accused would not stop and the husband of the prosecutrix asked him to stop otherwise they would get hurt and the accused started hurling abuses called Guddibai Chamatti 5 to 6 times and made obscene gestures and threatened to strike with the tomy and the stones. The incident was witnessed by sevearl persons. The complainant Guddibai filed written complaint at the P.S. Narayangarh. Investigation was launched by A.J.K. Police Station and the accused was duly charged and committed to the trial. 3. The accused Dashrath abjured his guilt and stated that he was falsely implicated in the matter. The trial Court on considering the evidence however convicted and sentenced the accused as herein above indicated and hence the present appeal. 4. Counsel for the appellant has vehemently urged the fact that the conviction is contrary to the provisions of law and the trial Court has failed to appreciate that the prosecutrix version, was highly exaggerated and that the incident occurred on 6.9.04 at 15.30; whereas the FIR was launched on 7.9.2004 at 13.50; whereas the Police Station was only 25 kilometers away and the delay has not been explained. Moreover counsel urged that the dispute has arisen when the accused was reversing his tractor and the possibility of the false implication cannot be ruled out. Moreover counsel urged that the dispute has arisen when the accused was reversing his tractor and the possibility of the false implication cannot be ruled out. So also counsel urged that the appellant was granted anticipatory bail and he was on bail through out the trial as well as the present appeal and he has not misused the liberty granted to him and counsel vehemently urged that it was a case of false implication and his defence is reinforced by this fact. 5. Counsel placed reliance on Bhoor S/o. Bhogiram Lodhi v. State of M.P. [2005 CrLR [M.P.] 209] whereby this Court has held that the FIR was lodged after 25 hours of the incident and the police station was nearby and the prosecutrix had given exaggerated statement before the Court, her statement was not corroborated by medical evidence. No injury was found and the possibility of false implication could not be ruled out against the accused and the accused appellant was entitled to acquittal. Similarly, counsel stated that the prosecutrix is not very reliable in the present case and her testimony is full of omissions and contradictions and there was nobody on the spot of the incident and hence the offence under section 3 (1) (x) of the SC/ST Act is not made out. 6. Moreover, counsel stated that to constitute an offence it is necessary that whoever is not a member of a Scheduled Caste intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate another person who is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribes in any place within public view; merely calling a person by caste without mense-rea or intention to insult and humiliate cannot constitute the offence under section 3 (1) (x) of the SC/ST Act. Counsel relied on Jasrath Singh and another v. State of M.P., 2005 (4) MPLJ 363 and counsel prayed that in the instant case the ratio applied in full force. Moreover, counsel state that the benefit must accrue to the accused and urged that the appeal deserves to be allowed and the judgment of conviction deserves to be set aside. 7. Learned counsel for the State per contra stated that the judgment of the trial Court is in accordance with law and does not require any interference and the appeal filed by the appellant be dismissed. 8. 7. Learned counsel for the State per contra stated that the judgment of the trial Court is in accordance with law and does not require any interference and the appeal filed by the appellant be dismissed. 8. On considering the above submissions and on perusal of the record, I find that there is not sufficient evidence on record to sustain the conviction under section 3 (1) (x) of the SC/ST Act. The prosecution witness PW 3 Bardichand was an independent witness has not given any statement regarding the threats issued by the accused to the complainant and the trial Court has rightly held that the threats were not proved. From considering the evidence of the prosecution it is made clear that the prosecutrix has made improvement in the statement. There are lot of omissions and contradictions regarding threats issued her and her case diary statement as well as her statements regarding in Court clearly indicated that the case was one of false implication. Moreover the testimony of the husband Ramlal (PW 2) is under a cloud of suspicion; he is a highly interested witness being the husband of the prosecutrix. Similarly the learned Judge of the trial Court has himself observed that this witness had failed to state the exact nature of the abuses hurled at his wife; merely stating that he had used that words would not be sufficient and trial Court had itself acquitted the accused from offence under section 294 of the IPC. on this ground alone. Placing reliance on Jasrath Singh (supra) and Bhoora (supra) I find that the appeal needs to be allowed. The FIR is also delayed by 24 hours and the exaggeration in the statement of the prosecturix cannot be denied and the independent witness PW 3 Bardichand has not fully supported the prosecution case and in this background I find that it would be crucial to convict the accused for offence under section 3 (1) (x) of the SC/ST Act. 9. Resultantly, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The conviction of the sentence of the appellant for offence under section 3 (1) (x) of the SC/ST Act is hereby set aside. The appellant is on bail. His bail bond and surety bond are discharged.