ssss' -3E»8a^^^^G^BT;^s»K%W::38s^[^[l^:^S®; N«y:i'"iSSIg 2':'&'s^:^'0?'^;'%';^:'^'i:: i^ :.:;;:;..&:^;'~:^''.-^^'1..:.^:'.'; ./:'',^ ,:e:^s^ii^ltl::^%-<re;.-t99S^^^^tJ*K|BB S^^SSKSS^-'V^-:^^ ,a»t'rS^sgiaf^gK^ssE ••<;X ^}y£^^^" s'sa ·a^^^®^^affl,:';·'z»S5Eae^':|^E:2;r6^a^t1lm^^|t ^1.8^Ja|ca^;^:^x^,?B^s^rp^ '•L(ii.^).'.',:'l\-^;:f?';•';.; :^'^^-^ •vsass,^..:';.. • •^ ';7^^:; [t-' ^afee;3|^t.a'i:sK^^^a3&s»l^Na ^t»t :-^^^3 .® SIBB ^^;N:.;''1'B39 '.^.^^:^-ty-^^i ^.^S^S'Si'SS S.iSSa'SSi^ ^mSSSSSSSSSSM ,3^^,fe^ll^:B'*|^JB^l!^|Bi|t^ ^'SSsvi'^gaSsl^^lB^^Sai decl.aed: OB 38i-Q- '^K ;l^S':!~^^S?'^%S%5?^^'?jSjfl3118S9i?SSaB ^";'":y'r'~^s.2I^^'^ '•^:~-:- ^-^.^-':^^^y^i 8 ix .^i^f /X^ E:'£i?:&<k^ ww HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Appeal No. 1752 of 1996 APPELLANT RESPONDENT VERSUS Lakhan Singh State of Madhya Pradesh Shri J.K. Shashtri counsel forthe appellant. Shri Ashish Gupta PL for the respondenVState. CRIMINAL APPEALUNDER SECTION 374 OF THECODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. JUDGMENT (14.01.2011) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30.9.1996 passed by Special Judge Raipur in Special Sessions Trial No. 307/1996 convicting the accused/appellant urtder Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (prevention of atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and pay fine of Rs. 500 ih default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 12.3.1995 FIR (Ex. P- 1) was lodged by Panchuram (PW-1) who at the relevant time was Sarpanch of village Godwara alleging that on 10.3.1995 at about 8 p.m. the wife of one Balla Satnami had approached him and complained that one Somru Satnami had caught her hand and tried to outrage her modesty. Thereupon he asked that lady to go and report the matter in the police station. It is alleged that after-some time Dayaram (PW-2) and Hiraman (PW-3) came to him and informed that near the culvert the accused/appellant was abusing him saying " Wct vm wrsi ?? TW f ^fif^ g7 wnr ^ wa w^ ww'? ^ ^1?^' w^ SIMT -^sr ^ f'. On receiving this information when he went near the place of incident he saw the accused/appellant abusing him saying "w^ wm w?7? ?? :??r ^ fi^ft vff fW^ cfft sfr.fT •^sr ^ f'. After investigation challan was filed on 25.7.1995 under section 3(1) (x) of the Act. 3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, prosecution has examined as many as 04 witnesses in support of its case. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charge levelled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. One Rakesh Awadhia (DW-1) has also been examined by the defence in support of its case. 4. After hearing the parties the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned above. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the judgment impugned. 6. Counsel for the accused/appellant submits that the present case appears to be an Qutcome of village politics where as the complainant Panchuram (PW-1), Dayaram (PW-2) and Hiraman (PW-3) belong to the other group, a false and fabricated report came to be lodged against the accused/appellant. He submits that according to the prosecution case itself the culvert where the accused/appellant had allegedly abused the complainant is about 200 ft. away from the house of the complainant and he had not gone up to the culvert but heard the abuses being hurled by the accused/appellant from about a distance of 100 ft. He submits that a very improbable story has been put forth by the prosecution that from a distance of 100 ft. that too in the dark night the complainant had seen the accused/appellant abusing him. In fact the incident of abusing has been disclosed to the complainant by Dayaram (PW-2) and Hiraman (PW-3) and even they could notjustify the same in accordance with law. He further submits that the place where the incident took place is not within the public view and therefore the provisions of Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act are not attracted to the R:£t^§?| case in hand. He submits that the prosecution has failed to prove the factum of abuse being hurled with intent to cause insult or humiliation to the complainant. 7. Supporting the judgment impugned counset for the respondenVState submits that the complainant is Satnami by caste and as he has been abused and insulted by the accused/appellant, his conviction under Section 3 (1 ) (x) of the Act is just and proper. 8. Complainant Panchuram (PW-1) has stated in his evidence that he is Satnami whereas the accused/appellant is Thakur by caste and they are of the same village. He has stated that on 10.3.1995 one Nirmala Bai had come to him with a complaint that one Sobhru Satnami had entered her house and subjected her to beating, on which he asked her to go and report the matter in the police station. Thereafter, on the same day at about 8 p.m. two persons namely Hiraman and Dayaram came to him and infofmed that near the culvert accused/appellant was abusing him saying "Sa/e Chamar". On hearing this, when this witness came out he also saw the accused/appellant abusing him saying "Sa/e chamar, chhote-chhote mamla ko thana bhej deta hai" This witness however admits that in police station Ganj a case was registered against him under section 324 IPC and 25 of the Arms Act for assaulting one Dharminbai with knife. He has stated that in his village there are two groups of Satnami caste. According to this witness, he does not have any relation with Mina Bai but as she is having the land in his village, he knows her. According to him, Mina Bai deals in land and he becomes the witness to the said transaction. He admits that after getting the information from Hiraman and Dayaram he went around 100 ft. away from his house and heard the abuses whereas the culvert is at a distance of 200 ft. from his house. This witness has expressed his ignorance regarding registration of the offences against him under Sections 107 and 116 IPC in the year1994 on the report of one Roop Singh. However, according to this witness in the year 1995 an offence was registered against him, Dayaram and Hiraman under Sections 107 and 116 IPC on the report of one Roop ^ ^ b' :\ -^- Singh. He has stated that as his scooter had developed some mechanical defects, the report could not be lodged on the same day. He has stated that on the second day of the incident he had gone to Dharsiwa for some official work and as a closure of the town was announced at Dharsiwa, there also the report could not be lodged. Dayaram (PW-2) has stated in his evidence that on the date of incident at about 8 p.m. when he had gone to attend the call of nature, he saw the accused/appellant coming from the locality and started abusing the complainant saying "sa/e chamar, neech jati ke Sarpanch Ban gai hain". He has stated that at that time Hiraman was also with him and thereafter he informed the complainant about the said incident. He however has denied that his relations with the Sarpanch were very good. He has stated that he did not know Mina Bai and Sukwaro Bai. However, this witness admits his signature on the sale deed Ex. D-2 though he expressed his ignorance about his being a witness to the said sale deed. Almost similar statement as.that of Dayaram (PW-2) has been made by Hiraman (PW-3). He however admits the fact that in the village relation, complainant calls him uncle and he recognized him as his nephew. Head Constable Itwari Ram (PW-4) is the investigating officer who has supported the case of the prosecution. Defence witness Rakesh Awadhia (DW-1) has stated that at the relevant time the accused/appellant was performing his official duty in his ward and he was with him from morning till 9.30 p.m. 9. Minute examination of the evidence of the witnesses reflects that thereare two groups in the village and the complainant, Dayaram and Hirman belong to one group whereas the appellant belongs to the other group. Evidence further makes it clear that the incident had taken place near the culvert where it is alleged that the appellant was abusing the complainant but this evidence also reflects that the complainant had not reached up to the spot and was 100 ft. away from there and in these circumstances it is difficult to understand as to how the complainant could see the accused/appellant abusing him from such a distance of about 100 ft. particularly when it was dark in the night. Moreover, there is two days' delay in lodging the FIR which has not been properly explained by the prosecution. More importantly, the prosecution has failed to prove as to whether the incident had taken place in public view. This apart, the prosecution has also not produced any certificate showing that the complainant belongs to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe community which is a sine qua non for convicting a person under section 3 (1) (x) of the Act. In these circumstances, the conviction of the accused/appellant under this special provision as has been done by the Court below can not be maintained and the appellant is entitled to receive the benefit of doubt. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Judgment impugned is hereby set aside. Appellant is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. As he is already on bail,his bail bonds stand discharged. ___—— Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge .•^1 ^Fl' i.1i,; jtisjt,