Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 685 (MP)

Badam @ Badam Singh v. State of M. P.

2015-07-02

D.K.PALIWAL

body2015
ORDER 1. This revision petition has been preferred by the petitioners under section 397 read with section 401 of CrPC against the order dated 19.11.2014 passed by Sessions Judge, Ashoknagar in S.T. No.63/2014, whereby the charges under section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and under sections 294, 341, 323, 323/34, 325, 325/34 of IPC have been framed against the petitioners. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant has lodged the report alleging that she has gone to the shop of Ajit Kushwaha, Ajit Kushwaha caught hold her hand and asked her to come for a night. Brother of the complainant seen it, then, he asked Ajit Kushwaha to make understand. Thereafter Ajit Kushwaha, Kabulchand, Ram Singh, Ajay stopped the complainant and her brother/Bittu and they gave beating by means of Lathi causing injuries to the complainant and her brother. On this Crime No.100/2014 for the offence punishable under sections 294, 341, 323, 323/34, 325, 325/34 of IPC and under section 3(1) (x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been registered against the petitioners. 3. After due investigation charge-sheet has been filed. The learned Sessions Judge has framed charges under section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act along with sections 294, 341, 323, 323/34, 325, 325/34, 506-II of IPC against the petitioners. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have preferred this revision petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned trial Court has not considered the material available on record before framing the charge against the petitioners. Prima facie no charge has been made out against the petitioners. Ingredients of offence under section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are not available. Further there is no prima facie material available on record to infer that the offence has been committed with an intention to insult or humiliate the complainant. Hence, prayed that petitioners be discharged from the charge. 5. Learned Government Advocate has supported the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court submitting that prima facie there is material disclosing commission of offence punishable under section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act, hence learned trial Court has rightly framed the charges. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. 5. Learned Government Advocate has supported the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court submitting that prima facie there is material disclosing commission of offence punishable under section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act, hence learned trial Court has rightly framed the charges. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. This Court in the matter of Anil Kumar Pandey v. Daulat Prasad, reported in 2005(II) MPWN 133 = 2005(3) MPHT 463 , wherein the allegation was that “JA BE CHAMARA TERA HISAB HO CHUKA HAI JO DEKHE KAR LENA IS PRAKAR JATIGAT APMAN APSOBDO DWARA KARTE HUE ANAVEDAK NE AVEDAK SE KAHA TUJHE JAN SE KHATM KARVA FIKWA DUNGA”, has held that the aforesaid words have been used without there being any intention to insult or humiliate the member of Scheduled Caste, hence prima facie no offence under section 3(1)(x) of SC, ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out. Similarly, in the case of Jagdish v. State of M.P., reported in 2011(I) MPWN 61 = 2010(5) MPHT 119 , word “CHAMAR” was alleged to be uttered without any intention to insult or humiliate the complainant, this Court held that no offence is made out. 8. At the stage of framing of the charge, the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence, which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. The standard of test, proof and judgment which is to be applied finally before finding the accused guilty or otherwise, is not exactly to be applied at the stage of sections 227 or 228 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court at the stage of framing of charge is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence charge can be framed. 9. In the case of Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad v. K. Narayana Rao [2012 AIR SCW 5139], the apex Court considered the scope of sections 227 and 228 of CrPC and held that for framing of charge, a roving enquiry in pros and cons of matter and weighing of evidence as is done in trial is not permissible at this stage. The charge has to be framed if Court feels that there is strong suspicion that accused has committed offence. Thus, even if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, a charge can be framed. 10. In the instant case, in the FIR lodged by the complainant there is no allegation regarding offence punishable under section 3(1) (x) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. In the case-diary statement also the complainant has not made any allegation regarding the offence punishable under section 3(1) (x) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Bittu in his case-diary statement has also not made any allegation regarding offence under section 3(1)(x) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Other witnesses have also not stated anything. There is no prima facie material showing that the offence has been committed because the victim is a member of scheduled caste. 11. In view of the aforesaid the charge framed against the applicant under section 3(1)(x) of SC, ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act deserves to be and is hereby quashed. 12. So far as the charges under sections 294, 341, 323, 323/34, 325, 325/34, 506-II of IPC are concerned, as per the medical report and the statement of witnesses there is prima facie material available on record for framing the charges against the petitioners, hence I find that the learned trial Court has not committed any illegality in framing the aforesaid charges, accordingly, the same is hereby maintained. Accordingly this revision petition is partly allowed. 13. In view of the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of accordingly.