\t, ,,.1-"'SS'^ B b' /•"I \'s,,> te.?*.... l-iS3i|gE»!|g;^^,^ ,„.„ HtGH COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.t Cr.M.P.No. 330 of 2008 Ssngte Bench : Hon'bie N'.r. T.P. Sharma, J. APPLICANTS Non-appiicant NON-APPLICANTS Applicant 1. Chandrashekhar Pandey, S/o Kashiprasad Pandey, aged about 55 yrs. 2. Pawan Kumar Pandey, S/o Chandrashekhar Pandey, Aged about 18 years, 3. Sitadevi Pandey, w/o Chandra shekhar Pandey,Aged about.45 years All are R/o Boirdadar Raigarh, Thana Chakradhar Nagar, Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Station House Officer, Thana Schedute Caste and Scheidule Tribe, Raigarh 2. Vijay Miri, S/o Mohar Sai Miri, Aged aboirt 25 years, R/o Boirdadar Near Schoo!, Raigarh (C.G.) APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Present : Shri Neeikanft Malaviya, Advocate for ttie applicants. Ms. Sangeeta h4ishra, Panel Lawyer for the State/non-applicant No.1. ORDER (Passed on 31st July, 2008) Thls application is directed against the order dated 15.4.2008 passed by Special Judge, Raigarh, in Special Criminal Case No. 8/2008whereby the leamed Special Judge has framed charges for the offence punishabie under Sections 294 & 506 (B) of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1){10) of the Schedule Caste and Scheduie Tribe [ Prevention of Atrocities] Act. 2. The order is challenged on the ground that trial Court has committed illegality by framing charges on the basis of contradtetory and faise statement. S;ta{- ^ 'i^i^p^-,.^; ^•^••feill?'ySKs ..i-^-S^^^^^? 3. i have heard Mr. Neelkanth Maiavlya. counsel for the applicarits & Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, Panel Lawyer forthe State 4. Order impugned and copy of charge-sheet, copy of infimatfon under Section 155 ofthe code is perused. 5. ' It is argued on behalf of the applicants that ttte applicants have lodged report against the non-applicant Vijay IVIiri on T.11.2007 and after the said report the non-appticant has also lodged false and cantradictory oral report to the potice in which the time and place of incident are ncft same. 6. Reliance has placed In the matter of S.K. Murti arad anr. v. ©ovind Prasad Aarawa^. in which it has held by tte High Gourt of Madhya Pradesh that: in proceectings under Section 482, Cr.P.C., the Court is not required to examine the defence in detail and record a flnding of not guilty - But, the Court has to consider whether the complaint and the documents fited along with complaint disclose any or atl of the offences. 7. Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act reads as under: "intentionaily insults or intimidates with irrtent to humiliEde a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any ptace within public view" The applicant has not stated that he has insulted being a member of the Scheduted Caste, the non-appticant used the word 'Chamar'. In the case of Satyaprakash Vs. State of C.G. , white dea'ing with the provisions of Section 3 (1) (x) ofthe Act, it has held that if a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is insulted being a member of Scheduted Caste, Uien the offence may fall under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act. Relevant portion reads as under: Section 3(1) (x) of the Scheduted Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 iays down that "(a) there must be an ' 2003 (4)M.P.H.T. 568 2 2004(1) CGLJ 162 JJ '^r'C^ •"IISSSI- ^2^ .-a!"?3:i'a "intentional insult" or "intlmidatton with "Intend" to humHiate SC/ST member by a non-SC/ST member; (b) and that insult must have been done in any place within the "Public view." The wordtng of the section makes it crystal clear that the nwns rea is an essentiai ir^redient of the offence and it must also be prima facie estebiished that the accused had the knowledge that at the time of commisslon of the offence that Ihe victim belongs to the SC/ST and that the offence was committed for that reason. Merely calling a person by caste woilld not attract the pro\asions of this Act. Merely alteging that the accused uttered humiliating words may not be enough. This being a penal provteion'has to be given a strtet interpretation. If any of the ingredients is found missing, K woyld not constitute the offence. .The finding recorded by the trial court does not suffer any illegality or inflrmity. 1 do not find any substance in revision. D/- 8. Consequently, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and hereby dismissed. T. P. Sharma Judge iii^•