1 Cri.Appeal 452-1993 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.452 OF 1993 Prakash Bapu Mohite ..Appellant Aged : Adult, Residing at Mohite Vadgaon, Taluka Khanapur Vita, District Sangli. V/s. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent Through the Inspector of Police, Kadegaon Police Station. Mr.Jayant Bardeskar i/b. Mr.A.P.Mundargi, Senior Counsel, for the Appellant Ms Alpa T. Javeri, APP, for the Respondent - State CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 9TH MARCH, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT . This Appeal is directed against conviction of the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Section 7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act and Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code and 2 Cri.Appeal 452-1993 sentence to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months with a fine of Rs.500/- or in default rigorous imprisonment for one month imposed upon the appellant by the Sessions Judge, Sangli, by a Judgment in Criminal Case No.4 of 1993. 2. Facts which are material for deciding this Appeal are as under :- The first informant Malhari Bhiwa Kale was the elected member of Grampanchayat. On 16th February, 1993, a meeting was held at about 10:00 a.m. Some villagers were also present. The question of re-construction of Talim (Gymnasiam) was raised by the first informant. The appellant was allegedly standing outside near the door of the Grampanchayat office. When the first informant was near the door, the appellant is alleged to have told the first informant that he would re-construct Talim and lay the foundation and dared the first informant to 3 Cri.Appeal 452-1993 obstruct him. The appellant is also alleged to have abused the first informant by calling Mhardya-Dhedgya . The first informant belongs to Mahar caste included in the Scheduled Castes. On 17th February, 1993, the first informant gave a complaint to the police patil of the village addressed to the Police Inspector of the police station concerned, which was forwarded by the police patil to Kadegaon Police Station on 18th February, 1993. The Police Officer asked his sub-ordinate to make enquiries. On 23rd February, 1993, a report of the first informant was recorded and on that basis an offence was registered. 3. In course of investigation, the investigating officer drew panchanama of the spot, recorded statements of witnesses and on completion of investigation sent charge sheet to the Court of JMFC, Islampur, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Sangli, since the offence punishable under Section 4 Cri.Appeal 452-1993 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 could be tried only by the Court of Sessions. 4. The learned Sessions Judge charged the appellant of the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Section 7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act and Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the said charge and hence, he was put on trial at which the prosecution has examined in all five witnesses in its attempt to bring home guilt of the appellant. Upon consideration of the prosecution evidence, in the light of defence of being falsely implicated on account of political dispute, the learned Sessions Judge held the appellant guilty and sentenced him as afore mentioned. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant has preferred this Appeal. 5 Cri.Appeal 452-1993 5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned APP for the respondent  State. With the help of both the learned Counsel I have gone through the record. The learned Counsel for the appellant is right in submitting that the first information report would have to be treated as one given by the first informant on 17th February, 1993 to the police patil for being forwarded to Police Inspector, Kadegaon. The information about commission of this offence was received by P.W.5 PSI Venimadhav Bhalchandra Sonawane on 18th February, 1993 itself as stated by him. He stated that he had made endorsement on the report received from the police patil and had then asked Police Station Officer to call the first informant to the police station. This first report dated 17th February, 1993 which is marked as Exhibit No.8/1 does not contain the actual words used by the appellant in abusing the first informant. The report merely shows 6 Cri.Appeal 452-1993 that the appellant, an ordinary Gramastha, had abused the first informant, a member of the Grampanchayat, in filthy language by taking the name of his caste. The complaint recorded by P.W.5 PSI Venimadhav Bhalchandra Sonawane on 23rd February, 1993 at Exhibit No.9/1 would be only a statement recorded in course of investigation and would not qualify to be first information report and therefore, would be subject to all the limitation to which statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are subjected. Therefore, the document at Exhibit No.9/1 is of no use to provide corroboration to the word of the Complainant. 6. P.W.1 Malhari Bhiwa Kale as well as P.W.2 Vilas Baburao Mohite and P.W.3 Sanjay Ramchandra Mohite, all state in unison that the appellant had abused the first informant Malhari Kale by calling him Mhardya-Dhedgya . The learned APP, therefore, wanted that this 7 Cri.Appeal 452-1993 consistent version of the incident should be believed as has been rightly believed by the learned Sessions Judge. But, as pointed by the learned Counsel for the appellant this disclosure about calling the first informant Mhardya-Dhedgya itself came seven days after the incident and therefore, could have been an after thought. Further, in the context of the political rivalry and elections to the Grampanchayat which had taken place, the possibility of the appellant having been falsely implicated by making accusation of improper use of words could not have been ruled out. Though again the learned APP points out that all the three witnesses state that the appellant also belongs to their group, if the appellant really belonged to the group of the first informant and two witnesses examined, there could not have been any occasion for the first informant to lodge report against the appellant and the matter could have been sorted out within the group 8 Cri.Appeal 452-1993 itself. Particularly because there is delay of as many as seven days in stating about the appellant's use of the abusive words referring to the caste of the first informant, the learned Sessions Judge should have refused to believe the account of the incident given by the three partisan witnesses. 7. In view of this, conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Section 7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act and Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained. 8. Criminal Appeal is, therefore, allowed. Conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, under Section 7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil 9 Cri.Appeal 452-1993 Rights Act and under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the said offence. Fine, if paid, be refunded to the appellant. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)