Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 821 (MP)

Arjun Singh v. State of M. P.

2015-08-10

M.C.GARG

body2015
ORDER 1. In this case when the petitioners were given beatings and some other persons came to save them, at that time, it has been stated that they uttered abuses and somebody used the word “Harijano ka Chamar”. On that basis charge under section 3(1)(x) of SCST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has also been framed against the petitioners, even other charges are only of minor offence as such sections 323, 294, 506-II, 34, 336 of IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in this case the basic ingredients of section 3(1)(x) of SCST Act which requires intentional humiliation, reads as under :- (x) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe in any place within public view. 3. Aforesaid section does not attract for the reason that the fight had not started intentionally by the petitioners with a view to humiliate any person as scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. Petitioners have also relied upon the judgment delivered by this Court in the case of Santosh Lodha v. State of M.P., reported in 2011(III) MPWN 59 , wherein it has been held that :- “8. After examining the case in the light of the above and perusal of the FIR and the statements of the witnesses, it is gathered that the complainant had simply stated in the FIR recorded on 14th January 2011 that the accused-petitioner on account of his sitting idle, hurled abuses to him. It is nowhere mentioned by him that the accused with an intention to insult or humiliate abused him by uttering words “Chamru Hadda, I will kill you” During investigation, all the eye-witnesses mentioned in their statements regarding utterances of such abuses which were recorded on 27th January 2011 by the Investigation Officer. Thus, no intention on the part of the petitioner seems that his intent was to insult or humiliate the complainant and this was done within the public view, as observed by the apex Court in the case of Swarn Singh (supra). Merely, because the petitioner has denoted the complainant by utterances “Chamru Hadda” that would not attract the requisites contained in the provisions of section 3(1)(x) of the Act. Hence, in the opinion of this Court, the learned trial Court has absolutely fell in error in framing the charge against the petitioner for the said offence under the Act. Merely, because the petitioner has denoted the complainant by utterances “Chamru Hadda” that would not attract the requisites contained in the provisions of section 3(1)(x) of the Act. Hence, in the opinion of this Court, the learned trial Court has absolutely fell in error in framing the charge against the petitioner for the said offence under the Act. No such ingredients for constitution of the offence under section 3(1)(x) of the Act are found to be established. Consequently, the charge framed for offence under section 3(1)(x) of the Act is not sustainable as per provisions of law and the accused-petitioner deserves to be discharged. 9. In the result, the revision petition stands allowed only to the extent of framing of charge under section 3(1)(x) of the said Act. The petitioner/accused accordingly stands discharged from the alleged offence under the Act. It is however, made clear that the trial against petitioner/accused shall continue for other charges except the charges under section 3(1)(x) of the Act. 4. The facts of the aforesaid case are squarely applicable to the facts of the petitioners. Even otherwise taking into consideration the submission, FIR and the statement of Radheshyam, it cannot be said that the calling of name as “Harijano ka Chamar” to the witnesses was with intention to insult him. Such utterances occurred only after the complainant was beaten by accused persons and some other persons have also came to the spot. 5. In view of the aforesaid, the order of the framing charge is modified to the extent that the said order dated 24.4.2015 will not include offence under section 3(1)(x) of SCST Act. 6. Revision petition stands disposed of. .................