Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 434 (CHH)

Genddas v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2014-12-02

CHANDRA BHUSHAN BAJPAI

body2014
JUDGMENT CHANDRA BHUSHAN BAJPAI, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 6.9.1999 passed by Special Judge under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act 1989 (for short the Act), Raipur in Special Sessions Case No. 107 of 1998 whereby and whereunder, the Special Judge after holding the appellant guilty for intentionally insulting by saying the name of the caste of the complainant with intent to humiliate him in public place, as he belongs to Scheduled Caste community, convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(10) of the Act and sentenced him for rigorous imprisonment for six months and also to pay fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for ten days. The learned Special Judge also acquitted him of the offence under Sections 294 and 506 Part-II of the IPC. 2. Conviction is impugned on the ground that without there being an iota of evidence, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned thereby committed illegality. 3. As per the case of the prosecution, on 20.7.1998 at about 2.30 pm, complainant Amaru Gada (PW-1) reached to the Police Station Jhura, the then District Raipur and lodged First Information Report (Ex-P/1) against the appellant which was registered as Crime No. 37 of 1998 under Sections 341, 294 and 506-II of the IPC and also under Section 3(1)(10) of the Act. After registration of the FIR (Ex-P/1) case diary was forwarded to SDO(P) Jagdalpur, Jagmohan Singh Bhatti (PW-10) for further investigation. The SDO(P) prepared spot map vide Ex-2, recorded statement of the witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the Code). The appellant was arrested vide Ex-P/4 and seized one spade from him vide Ex-P/3 also collected caste certificate of the complainant and the appellant vide Ex-P/7 & P/8. During the trial, the appellant was charge sheeted for the offence under Section 3(1)(10) of the Act read with Section 294 of the IPC and 506-II of the IPC. The appellant denied the charges and prayed for trial. 4. In order to prove the guilt of the appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses. During the trial, the appellant was charge sheeted for the offence under Section 3(1)(10) of the Act read with Section 294 of the IPC and 506-II of the IPC. The appellant denied the charges and prayed for trial. 4. In order to prove the guilt of the appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses. Statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Code wherein he denied the circumstances appearing against him, pleaded innocence and false implication in crime in question. 5. After providing opportunity of hearing to the parties, the learned Special Judge acquitted the appellant from the charges under Sections 294 and 506-II of the IPC and convicted him under Section 3(1)(10) of the Act and sentenced as aforementioned. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment impugned and record of the Court below. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that no caste certificate issued by the competent authority is ever collected or seized. In the present case, Caste Certificate (Ex-P/8) is proved by Prem Sahu (PW-9) Sub-Inspector. But the authority, Sarpanch, who issued the caste certificate was not examined by the prosecution thereby this certificate is not proved as required by the relevant provision of the Evidence Act. She further argued that the report was lodged after one day though the reason given in the FIR that the complainant convened meeting of villagers, but no witnesses had supported this point that after the incident meeting in the village was convened, which goes to show that FIR was lodged with delay for no sufficient cause. Thereby there was no scope for false implication as the appellant is Kotwar of the village and the complainant without any proper authority made a announcement with drum beat regarding administration of the village which was part of duty of the appellant. There was dispute between the appellant and villagers especially with the sarpanch of the village, and the Sarpanch and the villagers were not taking service of the village kotwar for the announcement with drum beat for any public purpose. Hence, the appellant was falsely implicated by the sarpanch and other villagers through the complainant. Lalit Ram Sahu (PW-4), Maniram (PW-5) and Shivcharan (PW-6) have not supported the prosecution case. Mehtar Kanwar (PW-7) is a hearsay witness and has not seen anything by his own eye. Hence, the appellant was falsely implicated by the sarpanch and other villagers through the complainant. Lalit Ram Sahu (PW-4), Maniram (PW-5) and Shivcharan (PW-6) have not supported the prosecution case. Mehtar Kanwar (PW-7) is a hearsay witness and has not seen anything by his own eye. Jaylal (PW-8) is real uncle of the complainant and thereby he is an interested witness. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that when the complainant was making some public pronouncement with drum beat which was protested by the appellant as this was an objection by the appellant only being a village kotwar. During this protest and prohibition there was some dispute but the appellant had not told anything in the name of the caste of the complainant as to intentionally insult or with intent to humiliate the complainant within public view and the word gadwa was not corroborated by the above mentioned witnesses. If at all the word gadwa was spoken by the appellant during above mentioned dispute since it is not with intent to humiliate the complainant, the essential ingredients of Act are not made out. The learned trial Court acquitted the appellant for the offence under Sections 294 and 506-II of the IPC, as the evidence adduced with this offence are not proved beyond doubt. As the appellant was falsely implicated, the appeal may be allowed and he will be acquitted of the charges framed against him. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the State/respondent opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant and supported the judgment of conviction and sentence and submitted that the judgment is well founded and there is no scope for interference. With intent to humiliate the complainant, the appellant had spoken the name of the caste of gadwa, hence committed the offence under Section 3(1)(10) of the Act, hence, appeal may be dismissed. 9. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, I have perused the evidence adduced by the prosecution before the trial Court. 10. There is no caste certificate issued by the competent authority collected or seized or adduced by the prosecution. The certificate (Ex-P/8) issued by Sarpanch too was not proved. 9. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, I have perused the evidence adduced by the prosecution before the trial Court. 10. There is no caste certificate issued by the competent authority collected or seized or adduced by the prosecution. The certificate (Ex-P/8) issued by Sarpanch too was not proved. It is reported that Sarpanch died before his examination but sarpanch is not a competent authority to issue the caste certificate as required under Section 2(1)(c) of the Act where it has to be specify under which category or sub-category the caste of the victim falls. One more point to note that nowhere the complainant deposed that with intent to humiliate him, the appellant has spoken the word of his caste. The entire statement of complainant goes to show that there is no proof for the intent to humiliate or intentionally insulted. Other witnesses Gunuram Gond (PW-3) and Jayalal (PW-8) uncle of the complainant, corroborated that the appellant spoken the caste of the complainant gadwa but they also not said anything that the appellant with intent to humiliate spoken the word gadwa. If at all during dispute on some other subject if the caste of the complainant is spoken by the appellant which itself may not constitute the offence unless with the corroboration of other facts and circumstances. 11. In the present case, FIR is lodged after one day, there is no reasonable explanation for the delay and cause mentioned in the FIR was not supported by any of the witnesses. The appellant is official village kotwar for any public announcement and intimations, it is the duty of the Kotwar to inform the villagers with drum beat but the complainant was not officially authorized for announcement of public information. Witnesses Lalitram Sahu (PW-4), Maniram (PW-5) and Shivcharan (PW-6) have not supported the incident, Mehtar Kanwar (PW-7) is a hear say witness. There is delay in filing the FIR, Caste certificate issued by the competent authority was not seized or collected and though caste certificate seized is not necessary but to prove category and sub category of the caste of the complainant the said caste certificate is required. The prosecution has failed to prove any of the witnesses including complaint that the appellant intentionally insulted the complainant with intent to humiliate him just by telling the word of his caste. 12. The prosecution has failed to prove any of the witnesses including complaint that the appellant intentionally insulted the complainant with intent to humiliate him just by telling the word of his caste. 12. After due consideration and close examination of the witnesses facts and circumstances and evidence, in the considered view of this Court, the prosecution has failed to prove the essential ingredients of offence against the appellant under Section 3(1)(10) of the Act, hence, the conviction requires interference. 13. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed. His conviction and sentence awarded under Section 3(1)(10) of the Act is hereby set aside. He is acquitted of the charges. The fine amount if paid shall be refunded. He is on bail, his bail bonds shall continue for further period of six months as per requirement of Section 437A of the Code. Appeal Allowed.