Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 108 (MP)

Anil Singh v. State of M. P.

2014-01-22

N.K.GUPTA

body2014
Judgment The learned Special Judge under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Rewa in supplementary special case No.27/2005 vide judgment dated 14.6.2013, convicted the appellant for offence punishable under Section 3(1) (x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter it will be referred to as 'Special Act') and sections 323, 294 of IPC and sentenced with one year's rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/-, 6 months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- and fine of Rs.500/- respectively. 2. The prosecution's case, in short, is that, on 18.10.2004, kerosene was being distributed in the society, situated at village Bheer (Police Station Naigarhi, District Rewa). The victim Julfilal (P.W.1) went to the spot to enquire about the distribution of kerosene. The appellant and the co-accused insulted him on the basis of his caste and thereafter, they assaulted him. They also abused him with obscene words. Julfilal has lodged an FIR in Rojnamacha and the victim was sent to the hospital for recording of medico legal report and treatment. After due investigation, a charge-sheet was filed and it was committed to the Special Court. 3. The appellant abjured his guilt. He did not take any specific plea and therefore, no defence evidence was adduced. 4. After considering the prosecution's evidence, the learned Special Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. If the evidence given by the victim Julfilal (P.W.1) and Ramadhar (P.W.2) alongwith FIR, Ex.P/5 are considered, whereas Dr.R.B.Choudhary (P.W.4) has proved the injury caused to the victim Julfilal then, the testimony of the victim Julfilal may be accepted to that effect that the appellant assaulted the victim Julfilal. The appellant could not show that he had any right of private defence or he was suddenly provoked. Under such circumstances, where he assaulted the victim for more than once, it would be apparent that he knew the result of his assault and therefore, the assault caused by the appellant to the victim Julfilal was voluntarily done by the applicant. The trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC. 7. So far as the offence punishable under Section 294 of IPC is concerned, the victim Julfilal (P.W.1) and Ramadhar (P.W.2) did not tell the obscene words told by the appellant at the time of the incident. The trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC. 7. So far as the offence punishable under Section 294 of IPC is concerned, the victim Julfilal (P.W.1) and Ramadhar (P.W.2) did not tell the obscene words told by the appellant at the time of the incident. Since the words were not told by the witnesses, therefore, it could not said that words told by the appellant were obscene words. Similarly, if text of the FIR, Ex.P/5 is perused then, there is no description of the obscene words told by the appellant. Under such circumstances, no offence under section 294 of IPC is made out against the appellant. The trial Court has committed an error in convicting the appellant for offence punishable under section 294 of IPC. 8. After considering the statements of Julfilal and Ramadhar, it would be apparent that distribution of kerosene was going on from the society and the complainant Julfilal was enquiring for the distribution. However, he has accepted that he was residing one km away from the society and therefore, it was possible that kerosene was not be provided to Julfilal from that society. It is no where alleged that the appellant was the salesman of the society or he has any concern with the society. The quarrel took place due to enquiry done by the victim Julfilal about distribution of kerosene and the co-accused Deepu Singh take it otherwise. Quarrel did not start due to caste of the complainant. Julfilal and Ramadhar have stated that the appellant Anil Singh insulted Julfilal with obscene words relating to his caste. However, if the FIR, Ex.P/5 is perused then, it would be apparent that no such allegation was made against the appellant. Such allegation was made against the co-accused Deepu Singh. Under such circumstances, it is clear that Julfilal has stated a falsehood before the trial Court that the appellant insulted him by the words related to his caste, whereas, if the appellant had insulted him on the basis of his caste then, such allegation should have been made in the FIR, Ex.P/5. The statement of the complainant Julfilal relating to insult done by the appellant on the basis of words relating to his caste, appears to be an after thought, which could not be believed. The statement of the complainant Julfilal relating to insult done by the appellant on the basis of words relating to his caste, appears to be an after thought, which could not be believed. Under such circumstances, the prosecution could not prove that the quarrel had started due to caste of the complainant or the complainant was insulted on the basis of his caste. Hence, no offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Special Act is constituted against the appellant. The learned Special Judge has committed an error in convicting the appellant for offence under section 3 (1) (x) of the Special Act. 9. So far as the sentence is concerned, it would be apparent that the victim sustained 7-8 injuries. Those injuries were not caused by the appellant only. The co- accused has also contributed in causing such injuries. However, the victim did not sustain any grave injury. The appellant was the first offender. He remained in the custody for 2 days during the trial. Under such circumstances, looking to the fact that offence is not so grave and the appellant was the first offender, who remained in the custody for 2 days, it would be apparent that his jail sentence may be quashed and maximum fine for offence under section 323 of IPC may be imposed. 10. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal filed by the appellant is hereby partly allowed. Conviction and sentence directed against the appellant for offence punishable under section 294 of IPC and section 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted from the aforesaid charges. However, conviction for offence under section 323 of IPC is hereby maintained but, sentence is reduced to the period for which he remained in the custody. However, fine amount is enhanced from a sum of Rs.500/- to a sum of Rs.1,000/-. The appellant has deposited the fine amount of more than Rs.1,000/- for other offences, therefore, fine imposed upon the appellant for offence under section 323 of IPC may be adjusted when the remaining fine amount is returned to the appellant. Out of the fine amount, a sum of Rs.700/- be provided to the victim Julfilal S/o Ramkhilawan Saket, R/o Village Bheer, Police station Naigarhi, District Rewa, by way of a compensation. 11. The appellant is on bail. Out of the fine amount, a sum of Rs.700/- be provided to the victim Julfilal S/o Ramkhilawan Saket, R/o Village Bheer, Police station Naigarhi, District Rewa, by way of a compensation. 11. The appellant is on bail. His presence is no more required before this Court and therefore, it is directed that his bail bonds shall stand discharged. 12. A copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court below along with its records for information and compliance.