XN,:S^,:EQ:SH,,C0CTBT,0^:.M^EttI5rA-,BRaDESH .AT .aasaSE'BR e3?Aa.i,a.a.lg,ABpe;al: ^ NS§s,sJ~3;SA—-.- . ^C ^: -: •' &B»KHASBS!.; H? lj/L^ ^^-(— R.toD.K II^A-- BEsEiaaaaE®' lo Pani3.caiB,.sl^^S»gS.j.Kh.i,raiff» aged 21: years.^ 2* .,,Aael,,,sAB§^^'.. ,. . S/o^^an^caia MairaE,; ageA 25 yearsy^ 3.»:• OukaE* I , S/o .^(t^Hisam Marar 4^' ©ayat.rA^.Bgil.,..,,. . •M/^B.aBia^aa,.;. \; ,aged;13^|f:;xeaE2(<., AII ;ai:E'e-icesj.den.f.si ehaEjeiada,. P«S.E E.i-'tlnQra, ^'i'SS^iff Sl;ai,g,;,:ei£;, ^y. ^Iiaga;',sy.fahjapa»f; ^K^'BSs^if^f^ SQa.isSas, ~^ iv.. ; : •SS fts&.i^^y HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker Criminal Appeal No. 784/1996 APPELLANTS Punuram and others Versus RESPONDENT State of Madhya Pradesh Shri Jaideep Yadav counsel for the appellants. Shri Ashish Gupta PL for the State. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (1)OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE JUDGMENT (30.03.2011) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 2.4.199ff passed by Special Judge, Raipur, in Special Case No. 265/1996 convicting the accused/appellants for the offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (X) Qf the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short the "Act") and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and pay fine of Rs. 500, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for four months. 2.. Facts of the case in brief are that on 16.10.1993 a written repori: Ex. P-1 was lodged by complainant namely Ram Kishan Dhritlahre (PW-1) alleging that on 15.10.1993 he was called by one Bol Singh as the accused/appellants were quarreling with his mother. It is alleged that when he went to the house of said Bol Singh, the accused/appellants No. 1 to 3 herein who were already present there had asked him as to who had called him there and also abused him saying "Chamar Sale". Thereafter, it is alleged that accused/appellant No.4 namely Gayatri Bai also came there and she also called him "Chamar" and spaton him. Based on this report, FIR (unexhibited) was registeredagainst the accused/appellants for the offences under sections 294, 506/34 IPC and 3 (1) (X) ofthe Act and after completion of investigation, challan was filed by the police on 1.11.1994 for the said offences. , -'\ F" .,^"'BS£""%'< ,;^F ,^""*SiEi. '"A, '^ i.wK.^if^S -wifr 3. So as to hold the accused/appellants guilty, prosecution has examined 04 witnesses in support of its case. Statements of the accused/appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied the charges levelled against them and pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case. 4. After hearing the parties, the trial Court has acquitted the accused/appellants of the charges under sections 294 and 506/34 IPC but convicted and sentenced them as mentioned above in paragraph No.1 of this judgment. 5. Counsel for the accused/appellants submits that the incident had taken place in the house of one Bol Singh which cannot be termed as a place within the public view and accordingly the provisions of Section 3 (1 ) (X) of the Act are not attracted to the case in hand. 6. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent/State supports the judgment impugned and submits that the manner in which the complainant has been abused by the accused/appellants calling him "Chamar Sale" the provisions of the special Act are very much attracted to the present case and that being so the judgment impugned is just and proper and calls for no interference in this appeal. 7. Complainant Ram Kishan Dhritlahre (PW-1) has stated in his evidence that the accused/appellants being residents of his village are known to him. According to him, he is Satnami by caste, whereas caste of accused/appellant No.4 Gayatari Bai is Teli and that of accused/appellants 1 to 3 is Marar. He has stated that on the date of incident at about 4.30 p.m. when he was attending the meeting of some Mahila Samiti, one Bol Singh came there and told him that the accused/appellants were quarreling with his mother who at that time was alone in the house. On this, he along with Ganeshu Ram, Lakhanram and Gangaram went near the house of Bol Singh and saw that the accused/appellants were hurling abuses at his )' .<,^i-i.j^i^' mother and when in order to pacify them he intervened in the matter, accused/appellant No.1 Punuram started abusing him calling "Sale chamar" and said that he had falsely implicated him in a false case going on before the Tehsildar. As accused/appellant No.4 Gayatari Bai was also involved in the said case before the Tehsildar, she also came there running and abused him in the same terms as by accused/appellant No.1 Punuram and also spat at him. In cross examination, he admits that he had studied law and he knew that if a report is lodged by a person belonging to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe community against the person of general category with respect to abuses, a serious offence is registered against the said persons. There appears to be material contradictions in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the Court statement of this witness. This witness has denied that in the case relating to theft of ornaments pending against accused/appellant Punuram in Mahasamund Court the compromise has been arrived at. Ganeshu Ram (PW-2) has also supported the statement of the complainant (PW-1) stating that he was called by Bol Singh and when he along with the complainant and other persons reached there, he was informed by said Bol Singh that there was some dispute between him and the accused/appellants. Thereafter, accused/appellants came nearer to him and started abusing the complainant calling "Sale Chamar". According to this witness, accused/appellants No. 2 and 3 had also abused the complainant. Thereafter, according to this witness, accused/appellant No.4 also reached there, started abusing he complainant in the name of his mother and also saying "Sale Chamar" and also spat at him. He admits that his relations with the complainant are very good. He however has expressed his ignorance with regard to the matter having been reported to the police by the complainant against accused/appellant Punuram. There appears to be material contradictions in paragraph 4 of the evidence of this witness. Niraj Singh (PW-3) -father of Bol Singh has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile. Ganga Ram (PW-4) has stated that he had gone to the house of Bol Singh and seen that a'S'~'>i~"""'-":y ..>.-..-.•jlls^ ^^?KSS9 —Lf_ there was some dispute between his mother and the accused/appellants where accused/appellant No.1 Punuram called the complainant "Sale Chamar" and as to why he had come there in respect of settlement of the dispute. According to this witness, other accused/appellants had also called the complainant "Sale Chamar". He however admits that his relations with the complainant are very good. There appears to be material contradictions and omissions in paragraph 3 of the evidence of this witness. This witness admits that some dispute was pending at Mahasamund Court and earlier on two three occasions the complainant had lodged the reports at Pithora police station and Harijan Thana against different persons saying that he was insulted by them. In this case the investigating officer has not been examined nor has the FIR been proved by the prosecution. 8. Minute examination of the evidence available on record goes to show that there was some dispute between the accused/appellants and the rival group and that number of cases are pending before different courts. Considering all this, possibility of false implication of the accused/appellants at the hands of the complainantcannot be ruled out. Furthermore, there appears to be material contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Evidence further goes to show that earlier on two-three occasions the complainant had lodged a written report against different persons alleging that he was insulted by them and therefore also it cannot be ignored that the complainant is trying to take advantage of his caste by implicating the people in a false case. Furi:her, exact place of occurrence hasnot been clarified by the witnesses as some say that the incident had taken place in the house of Bol Singh whereas according to others it was near his house. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appellants are entitled to receive the benefit of doubt. Moreover, it has also to be kept in mind that the incident had taken place in the year 1993 and with the passage of time particularly when both the parties are of the same village, it can be •-'. — expected that the relations between them might have become normal. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the conviction of the accused/appellants is not based on due appreciation of the evidence available on record and that being so the judgment impugned is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Judgment impugned is set aside. Accused/appellants are acquitted of the charge levelled against them. Accused/appellants are reported to be on bail. Their bail bonds stand discharged. '—^—- Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker c^ ;yi-i^R^ ^^•^•t^-