Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 567 (MP)

Dilip v. State of M. P.

2016-07-15

JARAT KUMAR JAIN

body2016
JUDGMENT 1. This appeal under section 374 of the CrPC against the judgment dated 30.5.2013 passed by Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Mandsaur in Special Case No.52/2011 whereby convicted the appellant under section 3(1)(x) of the Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in brief “the Act”) and sentenced to undergo 6 months’ RI with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default clause. 2. Brief facts of the case are that at the relevant time, complainant viz. Santoshbai who is a member of Scheduled Caste was Surpanch of Gram Panchayat and on 27.7.2011 at about 11 am. along with her son viz. Banti was proceeded to Panchayat Office. On way, Balu (since deceased) and his son Dilip met and they started abusing and humiliated Santoshbai. Said Balu and his son Dilip were aggrieved because Santoshbai had not sanctioned the loan for digging well under the scheme “Kapil Dhara”. On a written complaint of Santoshbai, Police registered the Crime No.18/2011 for the offence under sections 341, 294 and 506 of IPC and under section 3(1)(x) of the Act. 3. After completing the investigation, final report was filed against Balu and his son Dilip. Learned Special Judge framed the charge against Balu and Dilip under sections 341, 294 and 506 Part II of IPC and under section 3(1)(x) of the Act. Balu and Dilip abjured their guilt and took defence that due to previous enmity, they have been falsely implicated in this case. Prosecution examined 7 witnesses, whereas in defence, no witness has been examined. 4. After hearing the parties, learned Special Judge acquitted Balu and Dilip for the offence under sections 341, 294 and 506 Part II of the IPC, but convicted them under section 3(1)(x) of the Act and sentenced them, as aforesaid. 5. During pendency of this appeal, appellant Balu has been expired, therefore, his appeal is abated. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant-Dilip submits that learned Special Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence. The glaring defects are ignored by the learned Special Judge. The FIR was lodged after 28 hours of the incident and the delay has not been explained by the prosecution. Independent witnesses were not examined. There is material contradiction between the evidence of Santoshbai and her son Banti. The glaring defects are ignored by the learned Special Judge. The FIR was lodged after 28 hours of the incident and the delay has not been explained by the prosecution. Independent witnesses were not examined. There is material contradiction between the evidence of Santoshbai and her son Banti. The defence version is probable that due to previous enmity Balu and appellant Dilip have been falsely implicated in this case. In such circumstances, the conviction of the appellant is bad in law, therefore, it be set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate supports the impugned judgment of conviction and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, perused the record. 9. The incident took place on 27.7.2011 at 11 am., whereas Santoshbai submitted the written complaint next day i.e. on 28.7.2011 at 3.10 pm. There is no explanation in the complaint for the delay in lodging the FIR. Santoshbai's son Banti (PW3) was accompanied with her, he admitted in his cross-examination that he was having Mobile phone at the time of incident, however, he has not informed the Police about the incident on Mobile Phone and the matter was reported to the Police after one or two days. Thus, Santoshbai had not immediately lodged the report to the Police and no explanation has been put forth. It creates a doubt on the prosecution evidence. 10. Prosecution has examined the complainant Santoshbai (PW1), her son Banti (PW3) and her brother-in-law Banwari (PW2). No independent witness has been examined by the prosecution. However, the incident took place in the village Dodimeena at about 11.00 am. Witness-Banwari (PW2) stated that at the time of incident, there was an altercation between Santoshbai and the accused persons. He has not deposed that at the time of incident, Balu and his son Dilip humiliated Santoshbai by saying ^^ckNMh rw dqlhZ ij ugha cSBsxh^^ However, Banwari was declared hostile, even though he has not supported this version of Santoshbai. 11. Santoshbai deposed that on the date of incident, when she was going towards Panchayat Office along with her son Banti, accused Balu and his son Dilip started abusing her and said ^^ckNMh rw dqlhZ ij ugha cSBsxh^^ . Santoshbai has not specifically deposed as to which of the accused had used the said words. She has not specifically attributed the role played by the appellant Dilip. Santoshbai has not specifically deposed as to which of the accused had used the said words. She has not specifically attributed the role played by the appellant Dilip. Even her son Banti (PW3) who claims to be the eye-witness has not deposed that the appellant Dilip has humiliated his mother Santoshbai. Thus, from the evidence of these witnesses, it cannot be presumed that the appellant Dilip has humiliated Santoshbai who is a member of Scheduled Caste. 12. Santoshbai, Banwari and Banti have admitted in their cross-examination that before the incident, there was an enmity between the complainant and accused persons. Therefore, the possibility cannot be ruled out that due to previous enmity complaint was lodged against Balu and his son Dilip that they have humiliated the complainant in a place viewed by the public. It seems that Balu had applied for sanction of loan for digging a well in his field under the scheme “Kapil Dhara”, but the complainant who was Surpanch had not sanctioned the loan and, therefore, he was aggrieved. Therefore, there might be some altercation between the complainant and the accused Balu, but subsequently after one day of the incident, Santoshbai lodged the report exaggerating the fact that Balu and his son Dilip intentionally insulted with an intent to humiliate her in a public view. 13. In view of the foregoing discussion, the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Special Judge is not justified and it deserves to be and is hereby set aside and the appellant-Dilip is acquitted from the charge under section 3(1)(x) of the Act. The fine amount, if deposited, shall be refunded to the appellant. Gaurav Verma for appellant; Piyush Jain, Deputy Government Advocate for respondent/State.