Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 45 (MP)

Shiva Keshwarwani v. State of M. P.

2013-01-07

N.K.GUPTA

body2013
ORDER 1. This criminal revision has been preferred by the applicants against the order dated 30.5.2012 passed by the Special Judge under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “Special Act”), Jabalpur, whereby the charge of offence punishable under section 3(1) (x) of the Special Act was framed against the applicants. 2. The brief facts of the case relating to the present revision are that the complainant had lodged an FIR before the concerned Police Station that he was assaulted. Obscene words were told to him in a public place and also he was insulted on the basis of his caste. After due investigation, a charge sheet was filed. The case was duly committed to the Special Judge, Jabalpur. The learned Special Judge after hearing the learned counsel for the parties framed the charges of other offences as well as the offence under Section 3(I) (x) of the Special Act. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. The learned counsel for the applicants has submitted at length that no charge under section 3(1) (x) of the Special Act could be framed, because it is a settled view of Hon’ble the apex Court as well as this Court that by calling a person with the name of his caste, shall not cause his insult on the basis of the caste, and therefore no offence under section 3(1) (x) of the Special Act would be made out. Reliance was placed on the Judgment of the Single Bench of his Court in the case of “Shankar Singh Vs. State of M.P”, [ 2005(II) MPWN 21 ] and the order passed in the case of “Santosh Lodha Vs. State of M.P.” 2011(III) MPWN 59 =[ 2012(I) MPHT 237 ]. Hence, it is prayed that the applicants may be discharged from the charge of offence under section 3(1) (x) of the Special Act. 5. On the order hand, the learned counsel for the State opposes the revision petition. 6. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts of the case, it is apparent that if someone calls a person by the name of his caste, they by uttering such word relating to the caste shall not amount an offence under section 3(1)(x) of the Special Act. 6. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts of the case, it is apparent that if someone calls a person by the name of his caste, they by uttering such word relating to the caste shall not amount an offence under section 3(1)(x) of the Special Act. However, in the case of Shankar Singh (supra) the Single Bench of this Court has taken this view after appreciating the entire evidence adduced before the trial Court and the matter was considered in a criminal appeal after the conviction. In the case of Santosh Lodha (supra) the Single Bench of this Court has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble the apex Court in the case of “Swarna Singh Vs. State of M.P.” [ 2008(4) MPHT 329 (SC)] in which it was held that by uttering such word, which is caste of a particular person, does not amount any insult or humiliation to the scheduled caste or scheduled tribes person, and therefore no offence under section 3(1)(x) of the Special Act would be made out. But in the cae of Swarna Singh (supra) it was not directed by Hon’ble the apex Court that the evidence collected by the prosecution may be examined meticulously for framing of the charge. The golden yardstick for the framing of the charge is that if the prosecution evidence is considered as it is without any rebuttal, then a conviction may be directed for that offence. 7. In the present case, the learned Special Judge has mentioned that the complainant has given his version in the FIR in such a completed manner so that prima-facie it cannot be said that applicants only told abuses upon the caste of the complainant, but it appears that the applicants insulted the victim publicly on the basis his caste. They tried to remove his handcart, because of his caste. Under such circumstances the learned Special Judge has rightly held that it is a matter of evidence to assess whether any insult has been done to the complainant on the basisi of the caste or not. Therefore, the applicants cannot get any advantage of the order of the Single Bench of this Court in the case of Santosh Lodha (supra). 8. Therefore, the applicants cannot get any advantage of the order of the Single Bench of this Court in the case of Santosh Lodha (supra). 8. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, it cannot be said that prima-facie no charge of the offence under section 3(1) (x) of the Special Act could be framed against the applicants. Hence, no illegality or perversity is visible in the order passed by the learned Special Judge, and therefore the instant revision filed by the applicants cannot be accepted. Consequently, it is hereby dismissed. 9. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for information.