Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 367 (MP)

Aasu v. State of M. P.

2014-04-02

N.K.GUPTA

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. The appellant has preferred the present appeal against the judgment dated 13.10.2010 passed by the learned Special Judge under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Sagar in Special sessions trial No.1/2003, whereby the appellant was convicted for offence under section 294 of IPC and sentenced with fine of Rs.250/-. In default of payment of fine, 7 days simple imprisonment was also directed. 2. The prosecution's case, in short, is that, on 31.7.2002, at about 10.30 a.m. in the morning, the appellant alongwith other co-accused persons surrounded the complainant Chandrarani (PW 5), who went to drop her child to school. In the way, a quarrel took place for contract of cultivation of the land. The complainant denied to give her land for cultivation and thereafter, it was alleged that the accused persons abused the complainant and assaulted her. Thereafter, they went to the house of the complainant and broken the tiles of the roof. The complainant had lodged the FIR Ex.P/1 on the same very day at Police Station Jaisi Nagar. After due investigation, a charge-sheet was filed. 3. The appellant abjured his guilt. He did not take any specific plea in the case. However, a counter FIR was proved from the side of the defence. 4. After considering the evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Special Judge acquitted the accused persons from the charges of offence under sections 147, 148, 506 (B) of IPC and section 3 (1)(xi) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act but, convicted the appellant for offence under section 294 of IPC and sentenced as mentioned above. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. After considering the evidence given by the complainant Chandrarani (PW 5) and other eye witnesses, it would be apparent that Chandrarani told that the accused persons abused her with words “Dari Chamariya jyada udd rahi hai”, whereas other eye witnesses like Sumat Rani (PW 3) and Damodar (PW 8) etc. have told that the accused persons were abused with words “Madarchod”. However, such words were not told by the complainant Chandrarani or the eye witness Buddhu (PW 9). Such type of words can be uttered by a single person and by all the accused persons from time to time. No one can utter the same words simultaneously, whereas the prosecution was lodged against 10 persons. However, such words were not told by the complainant Chandrarani or the eye witness Buddhu (PW 9). Such type of words can be uttered by a single person and by all the accused persons from time to time. No one can utter the same words simultaneously, whereas the prosecution was lodged against 10 persons. In the FIR, there was no allegation against the appellant that he abused the complainant with such words. Omnibus allegations were made in the FIR, Ex.P/1. FIR is not a substantial piece of evidence and when the complainant Chandrarani herself did not say that the appellant abused her with such words as told by the witnesses Sumatrani and Damodar then, it cannot be said that the appellant uttered such words. 7. It is proved that the appellant abused the complainant Chandrarani but, the words told by the appellant were not proved to be obscene words eyond doubt and therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant uttered obscene words before anyone. For conviction under section 294 of IPC, mere filthy abuses are not sufficient. It is for the accused to utter obscene words in a public place. In the present case, the appellant himself had not uttered obscene words before any of the witness. Under such circumstances, the appellant could not be convicted for offence punishable under section 294 of IPC. The learned Special Judge has committed an error of law in convicting the appellant for offence under section 294 of IPC. 8. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal filed by the appellant Aasu can be accepted. Consequently, it is hereby allowed. The appellant is acquitted from the charge of offence under section 294 of IPC. He would be entitled to get the fine amount back, if he has deposited the same before the trial Court. 9. A copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court along with its record for information and compliance.