Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 75 (MP)

PRASAD AHIRWAR v. CHINTA KUSHWAHA

2012-01-16

U.C.MAHESHWARI

body2012
JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is directed by the appellant/victim under proviso of section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code against acquittal of the respondents No. 1 to 3 from the charge of section 3(1)(x) of the Schedules Castes and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 (in short 'the Act') vide judgment dated 29-3-2011 passed by the Special Judge, Chhatarpur (constituted under the Act in Special Case No. 153/08. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that one Parsad Ahirwar the appellant/victim lodged the FIR on dated 31-8-2008 at P.S Kotwali, Chhatarpur contending that on dated 30-8-2008 at about 6 O'Clock in the evening, he was looking after his crops in his field where accused/respondents No. 1 to 3 lashed with sticks met him and respondent No. 1 by abusing with filthy languages asked him why he has come to the field. He told them that it is his field. In response of it, respondents No. 1 to 3, by abusing caught him, on which, in order to save himself, he ran away towards his residence. On the way, he fell down. Thereafter, respondents No. 1 to 3 also came there and started his beating by means of sticks. On his shouting, his brother Dhunni (PW 5) came there and rescued him. Thereafter, respondents No. 1 to 3 after giving the criminal intimidation to kill him and taking the name of his caste covered under the Act, fled away from the place of incidence. Thereafter, he went to the police station and lodged the aforesaid report (Ex.P/1), on which, the offence of sections 323, 294, 341, 506-B and section 34 of the Indian Penal Code so also the offence of section 3(1)(x) of the Act was registered. After holding the investigation, respondents No. 1 to 3 were charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences. 3. On evaluation of the charge-sheet, the charge of sections 294, 323 in alternate sections 323/34, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(1)(x) of the Act was framed against the respondent No. 1 to 3, they abjured the guilt, on which, the evidence was recorded. 3. On evaluation of the charge-sheet, the charge of sections 294, 323 in alternate sections 323/34, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(1)(x) of the Act was framed against the respondent No. 1 to 3, they abjured the guilt, on which, the evidence was recorded. On appreciation of the same, after holding guilty to the respondents No. 1 to 3 under section 323/34, each of them have been punished with fine of ` 1000/-, in default of depositing the same, for further 1 month SI while in all other charges, they were acquitted by the trial Court, on which, the appellant/victim has come to this Court with this appeal against acquittal of the respondents under section 3(1)(x) of the Act and not any other part of the judgment of the trial Court. 4. Although in the prayer clause of the appeal memo, besides the aforesaid prayer, the prayer to punish the respondents No. 1 to 3 under section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code is also made but in such offence, they have already been convicted and sentenced as stated above. At this stage, I would like to mention that for enhancement of the punishment under the same section in which the trial Court has awarded such punishment, no appeal could be entertained at the instance of the victim under the aforesaid proviso of section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 5. The appellant's counsel after taking me through the evidence led by the prosecution specially the deposition of Parsad Ahirwar (PW 2) argued that there was sufficient evidence in his deposition to convict respondents No. 1 to 3 under the aforesaid offence of the Act but by ignoring the same, the trial Court has extended the acquittal to respondents No. 1 to 3 in such offence. In continuation, she said that in para-2 of the deposition said witness has categorically stated that initially the appellant was abused by the respondent No. 1 to 3 with filthy languages and during such course the name of his caste "chamra" was also said. With these submissions, she said that respondents No. 1 to 3 deserve for conviction under the aforesaid provision of the Act and prayed to convict them under such section by admitting and allowing this appeal. 6. After hearing the counsel, keeping in view her arguments, I have carefully gone through the record. With these submissions, she said that respondents No. 1 to 3 deserve for conviction under the aforesaid provision of the Act and prayed to convict them under such section by admitting and allowing this appeal. 6. After hearing the counsel, keeping in view her arguments, I have carefully gone through the record. It is apparent fact on record that after holding guilty to the respondents No. 1 to 3 for causing injuries to the victim/appellant, each of them have been convicted and sentenced under section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code although with fine only but such respondents have been acquitted from the charge of section 3(1)(x) of the Act holding that the prosecution has failed to prove that any abusive or filthy languages were used by any of the aforesaid respondents at the place which was common or in public view. It is needless to mention here that the independent witness Dhinnu (P.W.5), on recording his deposition turned hostile and did not said any incriminating thing against the respondents/accused. It is also apparent fact that in entire deposition of appellant/victim Parsad Ahirwar it was not said by him that the alleged abuses were stated by the respondents in public view or such abuses were amount to annoyance for some other persons. In the lack of such material evidence to prove the ingredients of the offence, the trial Court has not committed any error in extending acquittal under the aforesaid section 3(1)(x) of the Act to respondents No. 1 to 3 in the impugned judgment. So, it is held that there is no prima facie scope in the present matter to hold conviction against respondents No. 1 to 3 under the aforesaid offence of the Act. 7. It is apparent from the prayer clause of the appeal memo that this appeal is preferred only for holding conviction against respondents No. 1 to 3 under section 3(1)(x) of the Act as well as section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. It is apparent from the prayer clause of the appeal memo that this appeal is preferred only for holding conviction against respondents No. 1 to 3 under section 3(1)(x) of the Act as well as section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is apparent from the impugned judgment that respondents No. 1 to 3 have already been convicted and sentenced under section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and, in view of the proviso of section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code in which no remedy of enhancement of the awarded jail sentence has been provided, this appeal could not be entertained at the instance of the present appellant/victim for enhancement of the sentence awarded under section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code. In such premises, there is no scope even for admission of this appeal against acquittal of respondents No. 1 to 3 from the charge of section 3(1)(x) of the Act as stated above. Except this, no any other prayer is made in the appeal memo. 8. In the aforesaid premises, I have not found any circumstance or legal error in the impugned judgment requiring any interference at this stage to hold the conviction against the respondents No. 1 to 3 under section 3(1)(x) of the Act. Consequently, this appeal being devoid of any merits, is hereby dismissed at the stage of motion hearing.