Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 328 (MP)

Praveen v. State of M. P.

2024-04-04

HIRDESH

body2024
JUDGMENT 1. Appellant has filed this appeal under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 5.3.2013 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Dhar in Session Trial No.43/2011, whereby trial Court has convicted the appellant under section 353 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo six months' R.I. with fine of Rs.1000/- and under section 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act and sentenced him to undergo 6 months' R.I. with fine of Rs.1000/-, with default stipulation. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on date 14.3.2011, complainant was posted as in-charge Deputy Registrar at Registrar Office and when she was sitting in her chamber accused came in her chamber and started abusing her by using caste words and prevented her from doing the public work then complainant filed a written a complaint before the police and police registered F.I.R. and after due investigation, police filed charge-sheet. Trial court framed charges against the appellant and appellant denied the charges thereafter trial court after taking evidence and considering over all prosecution evidence found the appellant guilty and convicted him as mentioned above. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant challenged the aforesaid findings and sentence on the ground that trial court has failed to see the matter that there is no evidence on record to prove that the appellant was guilty. All the prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses and they have been hostile and did not support the complainant's version. Prosecution has failed to produce any independent witness, therefore, prays for setting aside the impugned judgment and for acquittal of the appellant from charges. 4. Now the question arises whether the trial court has wrongly convicted the accused/appellant and appellant is entitled for acquittal. 5. First question arises whether trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant under section 3 (1)(x) of SC/ST Act, 1989. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that at the time of the incident appellant was sitting in her chamber and no other person was present there and PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 are declared hostile and they have not supported the version of PW-1 Smt. Roshni. 7. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that at the time of the incident appellant was sitting in her chamber and no other person was present there and PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 are declared hostile and they have not supported the version of PW-1 Smt. Roshni. 7. In the case of Balu s/o Bajirao Galande v. State of Maharastra and another [2006 ALL MR (Cril.) 31971, the court relying upon the decision of Delhi High Court in Daya Bhatnagar and others v. State, (2004) Delhi Law Crimes 915, held that “expression “within public view” to mean that the utterances should be heard and viewed at least by one independent person. It has excluded the relatives, friends, persons having blood relationship or persons having close business or other fiduciary relationship with the victim from the purview of word public”. 8. In the present case, PW-1 accepted in her cross-examination in para 13 that it is true that at the time of incident no one was present except her and accused. In the above mentioned case, it has been held that independent person or persons thereby excluding the relatives, friends, persons having blood relationship or persons having close business or having fiduciary relationship with the victim. 9. So perusal of the evidence of PW-1 it is clearly proved that no one was present at the time of the incident except accused and complainant so public view was not proved. In Parsa Somaiah and others v. State of A.P. and another, 2015 (1) ALD (Cril) 143, it has been held as under:- “To attract the offence punishable under section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989, the Mens rea is the essential ingredient. The utterances made in the name of caste should be with an intention to humiliate or intimidate the persons belonging to Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe in a place within public view. If in the course of a quarrel took place in the fields the petitioners abused the de facto complainant and his people by using the caste name, the said act by itself in my view does not automatically attract the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. The manner in which the utterances were made must be with an intention to humiliate or intimidate the persons belonging to Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe.” 10. The manner in which the utterances were made must be with an intention to humiliate or intimidate the persons belonging to Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe.” 10. In P. Bhaskar Raju v. State of Telangana and others, 2015 (2) ALD (Crl.) 150, it was held thus: In Daya Bhatnagar's case (supra) one of the points referred to third Judge is: "(1) What is the correct and real meaning of expression "public view" occurring in section 3(i)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 and whether it would include the view of the accused in a counter FIR? It was held as follows: Para 15. x x x x (c) the incident must occur in any place within the public view. There cannot be any dispute that the offence can be committed at any place whether it is a private place or a "public view" as long as it is within the "public view". The requirement of "public view" can be satisfied even in a private place, where the public is present. Para-19 x x x x x “Keeping this in view, looking to the aims and objects of the Act, the expression "public view" in section 3(i)(x) of the Act has to be interpreted to mean that the public persons present, (howsoever small number it may be), should be independent and impartial and not interested in any of the parties.” 11. So in the considered opinion of this Court, in view of the aforesaid discussion, it is proved that at the time of the incident, no one was present so section 3 (1)(X) of SC/ST Act is not duly proved, therefore, trial court has committed error in holding the appellant guilty, hence, the conviction of the appellant under section 3 (1)(X) of SC/ST Act is set aside and he is acquitted from the charges under section 3 (1)(X) of SC/ST Act. 12. So far as conviction under section 353 of IPC is concerned, I have gone through the evidence adduced by the prosecution and examined it minutely. From perusal of overall evidence on record, it is clearly established that learned trial Court did not commit any error in convicting the appellant under under 353 of IPC. Hence, findings recorded by the trial Court with respect to conviction are affirmed. 13. From perusal of overall evidence on record, it is clearly established that learned trial Court did not commit any error in convicting the appellant under under 353 of IPC. Hence, findings recorded by the trial Court with respect to conviction are affirmed. 13. So far as sentence is concerned, record of the case reveals that incident took place on 14.3.2011, at that time the accused was 42 years old and now he is more than 54 years old. This is first offence of the accused/appellant. He remained in jail from 1.6.2011 to 2.6.2011, hence, the end of the justice would be best served, if his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone with the fine imposed by the Court below. 14. In view of the aforesaid, present appeal is partly allowed and conviction of the appellant by the trial Court is upheld. So far as sentence awarded by the trial court is concerned, same is modified to the period already undergone by the appellant in jail. Since, appellant is on bail, his bail bonds be discharged. 15. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned Court for compliance. The present appeal is partly allowed. Let the record of the trial court be sent back.