Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 224 (MP)

Champalal v. State of M. P.

2015-02-23

S.K.GANGELE

body2015
JUDGMENT : S.K. Gangele, J. 1. This Appeal is preferred by the accused/appellants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 14.9.1998 passed by the Special Judge, Jabalpur in S.T.No.40/97. By the impugned judgment, the trial judge convicted the appellants for commission of offence under section 294, 506-B IPC so also for commission of the offence under section 3(1)(x) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention) of Atrocities Act, 1989 ( in short `the Act') and awarded sentence of RI 3 months in first count, RI one year in the second count while RI six months with fine of Rs.200/- in the last count against each of the appellants. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that a meeting of the Gram Panchayat, Khedla was held on 26.3.95. It was presided-over by Maina Bai, Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. She was member of Schedule caste `Chamar'. When the meeting of the Panchayat was going on, there was verbal interaction between the Panchas, who are the accused persons, and the Sarpanch. The present accused persons asked the Sarpanch about accounts of the Gram Panchayat. Lakhanlal, husband of the Sarpanch was also present in the meeting. He had thrown the account-books and requested the Panchas to see the accounts. The Panchas made objection that the accounts were prepared at the residence of the Sarpanch. It is alleged that during that proceedings, the present appellants used filthy language against the Sarpanch and insulted by calling her caste name `Chamar'. The report of the incident was lodged on the next day of the incident i.e 27.3.95 before Superintendent of Police, Hoshangabad. The police conducted the investigation and thereafter charge-sheet was filed before the Special Court. The appellants abjured the guilt. The court, after trial, held the appellants guilty for commission of the aforesaid offences and convicted and sentenced them as mentioned above. 3. The prosecution examined seven witnesses in their support whereas accused appellants did not examine any witness in their defense. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants contended that the trial court has committed an error of law in holding them guilty for the offence under section 3(1)(x) of the Act. There is no evidence on record to substantiate the offence proved against the appellants. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants contended that the trial court has committed an error of law in holding them guilty for the offence under section 3(1)(x) of the Act. There is no evidence on record to substantiate the offence proved against the appellants. He further said that the trial court further committed error of law in relying on the evidence of the complainant, her husband and another witness who is the interested witness. The trial court did not consider the evidence of the independent witnesses, hence the judgment passed by the trial court is contrary to law. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of this court in the matters of Jasrath Singh and another Vs. State of M.P : 2005(4) MPLJ 363 and Santosh Lodha Vs. State of M.P- : 2012(1) MPHT-237. 5. Ramesh (P.W.1) in his evidence deposed that before him there was no quarrel between the complainant and the accused persons. The accused persons had asked the complainant about accounts of the Gram Panchayat. This witness was declared hostile. 6. Maina Bai (P.W.2), the complainant, in her evidence deposed that she is Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat and she belongs to Harijan caste. Both the accused persons were also member of the Gram Panchayat and they were member of Deshwadi caste. The incident had happened during the meeting of Gram Panchayat. In the aforesaid meeting, all the Panchas of the Gram Panchayat were present. The Panchas asked for accounts of the Gram Panchayat which was produced by her. Her husband was also present in the meeting. On production of the accounts by her, accused Bhaiyalal said that the same were prepared by her in her own residence. At that time, her husband thrown the account books and requested the Panchas to see the account books. On this, both the accused persons said to her husband Chamar why you are throwing the account books in this manner. What Panchayat is for ? They also objected, presence of her husband in the meeting. She also deposed that both the accused persons had threatened her and thereafter, the villagers tried to pacify the quarrel. The accused persons used the name of her caste in the Panchayat which offended her. In her cross-examination, she admitted the fact that there was dispute in regard to inclusion of names in the Indira Awas Yogna. She also deposed that both the accused persons had threatened her and thereafter, the villagers tried to pacify the quarrel. The accused persons used the name of her caste in the Panchayat which offended her. In her cross-examination, she admitted the fact that there was dispute in regard to inclusion of names in the Indira Awas Yogna. The meeting was going-on in the office of the Panchayat. No outside member of the Gram Panchayat was present in the Panchayat. 7. Lakhan Lal (P.W.3) who is the husband of the complainant supported the evidence of the complainant (P.W.2). He deposed that he was also present in the meeting of the Gram Panchayat being the husband of Sarpanch. Accused Bhaiyalal asked him about the account- books. The pass-book was in his pocket so, he thrown the pass-book before Upsarpanch. At that time, accused Bhaiyalal, by calling him Chamra, asked why he comes in the meeting of Gram Panchayat. In his cross-examination, he admitted that there was a dispute in regard to disbursement of the amount of Indira Awas Yojna. He has supported the evidence of the complainant (P.W.2) who also deposed the same thing. 8. Bhagirath (P.W.4), in his evidence, has deposed the same thing as Lakhanlal (P.W.3). He further deposed that accused persons and Upsarpanch asked about the account-books and profit and loss of the Gram Panchayat including the bills and vouchers. Lakhanlal thrown the pass-books and the register of the accounts of the Gram Panchayat then both the accused persons had said that in the manner in which he had thrown the account and pass-book, the same is used to throw food to the dogs. They also said that Sarpanch has prepared the bills and vouchers at her own residence which are not acceptable to them. Thereafter accused Bhaiyalal said that because Sarpanch and her husband belong to `Chamar' caste, therefore, the proceedings are being conducted in the `Chamar' fashion. In his cross-examination, he admitted the fact that he was the main person behind the election of Sarpanch. He further said that Maina Bai and accused Champalal fought the elections against each other in which he supported the candidature of the present Sarpanch. 9. Harishankar (P.W.5) in his evidence deposed that when the meeting was going-on in the school, he was passing therefrom. He heard that there was some quarrel in regard to accounts of Panchayat. He further said that Maina Bai and accused Champalal fought the elections against each other in which he supported the candidature of the present Sarpanch. 9. Harishankar (P.W.5) in his evidence deposed that when the meeting was going-on in the school, he was passing therefrom. He heard that there was some quarrel in regard to accounts of Panchayat. He did not heard any abusive language. He was declared hostile. 10. R.N.Yadav (P.W.6) is the sub-inspector who investigated the matter. He recorded the statements of witnesses and prepared the map (Ex.P.3) and signed the same. 11. Anita Santore (P.W.7), who was the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat, in her evidence, deposed that meeting of the Gram Panchayat was called by the Sarpanch on 26.3.95. In the aforesaid meeting, all the Panchas were present and they had demanded profit and loss accounts of the Panchayat. When both the accused asked about the accounts, there was some hot exchange of words between them but accused persons did not say anything against the Sarpanch about her caste. 12. The accused persons, in their statements under section 313 of the Cr.P.C, deposed that because Sarpanch had misappropriate the government money, hence they had demanded the account-books during the meeting of Panchayat and on that ground, the police report was lodged against them. However, they admitted the fact that the complainant belongs to schedule-caste `Chamar'. 13. The case of the prosecution has been supported by the complainant (P.W.2) herself, her husband Lakhanlal (P.W.3) and another witness Bhagirath (P.W.4). Bhagirath (P.W.4) is the interested witness because in his cross-examination, he admitted the fact that Maina Bai and accused Champalal had fought the election against each other and he had supported the candidature of the present Sarpanch. 14. In regard to consideration of the evidence of interested witnesses, the Supreme court in the matter of Ashok Raj vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, : (2014) 5 SCC 713 has held as under :- "12. It is argued that the prosecution case rests on evidence of interested witnesses. No independent witnesses are examined. Unless there is corroboration to the evidence of interested witnesses, their evidence cannot be accepted. We cannot accept this submission. The evidence of interested witnesses is not infirm. It would be good to have corroboration to their evidence as a matter of prudence. But corroboration is not always a must. No independent witnesses are examined. Unless there is corroboration to the evidence of interested witnesses, their evidence cannot be accepted. We cannot accept this submission. The evidence of interested witnesses is not infirm. It would be good to have corroboration to their evidence as a matter of prudence. But corroboration is not always a must. If the evidence of interested witnesses is intrinsically good, it can be accepted without corroboration. However, as held by this Court in Raju, the evidence of interested witnesses must be scrutinized carefully. So, scrutinized, the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW4 appears to be acceptable." 15. The Supreme Court has clearly held that the evidence of interested witnesses has to be carefully examined. In the present case, the Secretary of the Panchayat (P.W.7), who was present in the meeting, clearly deposed that the accused persons did not say anything against the Sarpanch or her husband about their Caste and did not use words of her Caste `Chamar'. Apart from this, two other independent witnesses also did not support the version of the complainant. The evidence of the Secretary of the Panchayat is important because it cannot be presumed that the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat would make a false statement against the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. It is admitted fact as deposed by all the witnesses that during the meeting, the Panchas objected functioning of the Sarpanch. They asked about the account-books of the Gram Panchayat. The husband of the Sarpanch was also present in the meeting although he was not authorized to remain present in the meeting. It is also admitted fact that he had thrown the pass-books and account-books before the Panchas and, on that event, there was hot exchange of words between the members of the Panchayat and husband of the Sarpanch. In such circumstances, it cannot be ruled-out that the complainant had used the opportunity to level allegation in order to frame the charges for commission of the offence under section3(1)(x) of the Act against the present appellants. 16. Apart from this, this court in the matter of Jasrath Singh and another Vs. State of M.P. : 2005 (4) MPLJ 363 has held that merely calling a person from the caste name without proof of any intention of insulting or humiliating do not constitute the offence under section 3(1) (x) of the Act. 17. 16. Apart from this, this court in the matter of Jasrath Singh and another Vs. State of M.P. : 2005 (4) MPLJ 363 has held that merely calling a person from the caste name without proof of any intention of insulting or humiliating do not constitute the offence under section 3(1) (x) of the Act. 17. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, the trial court has committed an error of law in holding the appellants guilty for commission of the offence under section 3(1)(x) of the Act. But there is sufficient evidence to hold them guilty for commission of the offence under section 294 and 506-B of the IPC. However, looking to the fact that this appeal is of the year 1998 and there was hot exchange of words between the Panchas of the Gram Panchayat, in my opinion, it would be sufficient to reduce the sentence awarded against the appellants for commission of the offence under section 294 and 506-B of the IPC as already undergone by enhancing the fine amount. 18. Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part. The conviction and sentence of the appellants under section 3(1)(x) of the Act is hereby set aside. They are acquitted from the aforesaid charge of the Act. However, their conviction under section 294 and 506-Bof the IPC is hereby affirmed. However, the sentence awarded against them under these sections is modified upto the period already undergone by them but by enhancing the fine amount Rs.5000/- against each of them. They shall deposit the enhanced fine amount within three months, failing which they will be liable to suffer RI 3 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. The enhanced fine amount is to be paid to the complainant. The trial court is directed to ensure this payment to the complainant by calling her in the court through summons. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are discharged. 19. Appeal is allowed in part as indicated above.