HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinqle Bench: Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhe Shyam Sharma Criminal Appeal No.1 842 of 1996 ‘E Sukh Prasad @ Sukhiram, S/o Kaneree Marar, aged 45 years, R/o Pachera, r 2. Brijlal, s/o Pransingh Marar, aged 45 years, R/o Pachera, 3. Dayaram, S/o Premsingh Marar, g aged 55 years, R/o Pachera, 4. Madhav @ Madhosingh, S/o x Pransingh'Marar, aged 50 years, R/o Pachera, 5. Shyamlal, S/o Lachchhan Marar, aged 26 years, R/o Pachera, Police Station ”Dondi, District Durg (MP) (Now Chhattisgarh) verSUS Respondent State of Madhya Pradesh (now Appellants 1 . State of Chhattisgarh) through Poiice Station Dondi, District Durg Present: Shri H.S.Patel, counsel for the appellants. Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Deputy Government Advocate and Shri Ravindra Agrawal, Panel Lawyer forthe State/respondent. Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure ORAL JUDGMENT w. (Delivered on 5t“ December, 201 1) This appeal is directed against judgment dated 4-10-1996 passed by 2'“ Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Durg in Special Criminal Case No.55/1992. By the impugned judgment, the accused persons/appellants have‘ been convicted under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and‘the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 19891 (henceforth ‘the Act, 1989’) and " Hrs sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each and to pay fine of Rs.100/— each, in default thereof, to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under: Shivbati (PW-1) is a woman belonging to Gada Scheduied daste. The appeiiants belong to general castes. Shivbati (PW-1) was employed as servant in the house of Manikbai (PW-2) at Village i’ Pachera. She was cooking food and washing utensils in the house 4’ ofuhaanikbai (PW-2). The appellants conducted a meeting in the village and asked Manikbai (PW-2) not to take work from a woman A of Neech Jati (lower caste) .at her house. They asked her to expel Shivbati (PW-1) from her house. They fined Manikbai (PW-2) with Rs.120/— and asked her to break a coconut. Shivbati (PW-1) was present in the said meeting of the village. She felt insult from this act of the appellants. At the insistence of the appellants, Manikbai (PW- 2) disengaged Shivbati (PW—1) from the housework and expelled her from her house. Shivbati (PW-1) submitted a written complaint (EXP—1) in Police Station Dondi on 31-5—1992. After completion of the investigation, chargze sheet was filed against the appellants in the Court of Special Judge, Durg, who conducted the trial, convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above. i 3. Shri H.S.Patel, learned counsel for the appellants argued that First Information Report (Ex.P-1A) was lodged after an enormous delay of 1 year of the incident. According to the prosecution, the wl;‘ N @ appellants insulted complainant Shivbati (PW-1) in a panchayat meeting held in the village, but Shivbati (PW-1) herself specifically deposed that she was not present in the said meeting. Therefore, it is ‘not estabiished that the appellants, being aware of the Tact that Shivbati (PW—1) belongs to Scheduled Caste, knowingly insulted, intimidated or humiliated her. The prosecution has utterly failed to prove offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, 1989 against the ‘5' appellants. Therefore, the appellants deserve to be acquitted of the charges framed against them. 3 4. AOn the contrary, Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the State/respondent, supporting the impugned judgment, submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Special Judge is impeccable and does not warrant any interference by this Court. a 5. i have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and have perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 6. Shivbati (PW-1) deposed that she belongsato Gada Caste. Manikbai (PW—2), Ramsingh (PW-3) and Samrath (PW—4) deposed that Shivbati (PW-1) is Gada by caste. The above witnesses did not specifically depose that Shivbati (PW-1)V belongs to Scheduled Caste. The prosecution did not produce caste cettificate of complainant Shivbati (Pt/\T—t ), 7. Clause (x) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act, 1989 runs thus: “3. Punishments for offences of atrocities.—(1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,— XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX ‘5 (x) intentionally insults or intimidates with intént to humiiiate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view;” 8. i shall now examine whether the appellants, being aware of i the fact that complainant Shivbati (PW—1) belongs to Scheduled a; Caste, knowingly insulted, intimidated or humiliated her. 9. ‘Manikbai‘ (PW-2), Ramsingh (PW-3) and ‘Samrath (PW-4) deposed that Shivbati (PW-1) was employed as servant in the house of Manikbai (PW-2) at Village Pachera. She was cooking food and washing utensils in the house of Manikbai (PW-2). The appellants conducted a meeting in the village and asked Manikbai (PW-2) not to take work from a woman of Neech Jati (lower caste) at her house. They asked her to expel Shivbati (PW—1) from her house. They fined Manikbai (PW-2) with Rs.120l— and asked her to break a coconut. Manikbai (PW-2) deposed that Shivbati (PW-1) was also present in the said panchayat meeting of the village. Shivbati. (PW—1) felt insult from this act of the appellants. At the insistence of the appellants, Manikbai (PW—2) disengaged Shivbati (PW-1) from the housework and expelled her from her house. Shivbati (PW—1) also deposed in similar fashion. ‘ 10. Manikbai (PW-2) deposed that she did not know who had called her to attend the panchayatmeeting in the village. She did § @ not depose that Shivbati (PW—1) was also present in the said meeting. Even Ramsingh (PW—3) and Samrath (PW—4) also did not depose about presence of Shivbati (PW-1) in the said meeting. Shivbati (PW—1) deposed in cross-examination that sheWvas not caiied by Panchas to attend the meeting in the village. From perusal 0t the above evidence, it appears that Shivbati (PW-1) was not present in the said panchayat meeting of the viliage. Therefore, the said meeting was conducted in absence of Shivbati (PW-1). Since, Shivbati (PW-1) was notpresent in the said panchayat meeting of the village, therefore, question of her insult or intimidation does not arise.‘ Shivbati ePW—1) submitted written complaint (EXP—1) in Police Station Dondi on 31-5-1992, on the basis of which, First Information Report (Ex.P—1A) was lodged. In the FIR (Ex.P-1A), the date of incident is shown to be prior to 10-5-1992. The written complaint/ (Ex.P-1) does not contain any date of its writing nor it contains the date of incident. 5 11. The learned trial Judge held in paragraph 12 of the impugned judgment that the FIR (Ex.P-1A) was lodged on 31—5-1992 and the incident took place 1 year prior to lodging of the FIR (Ex.P-1A). The learned trial Judge further held that the prosecution has properly explained the delay and the prosecution witnesses are independent witnesses, therefore, merely on the basis of belated lodging of the FIR (Ex.P-1A_), the evidence of prosecution witnesses cannot be discarded. The reasoning assigned by the learned trial Judge for conviction of the appellants is not sustainable. " @ $3- 12. Shivbati (PW-1) deposed that she !odged the FIR (Ex.P-1A) after 1 year of the incident. She further deposed that due to suggestion of some villagers, she had not lodged any report with police earlier, but, Iater on, she iodged the FIR (Ex.P-.1“A) at the instance of some villagers. Perusal of the evidence of Shivbati (PW- 1) shows that she did not want to iodge any report with police, but after 1 year of the incident, she lodged the FIR (Ex.P-1A) on the 6 ' advice of some villagers. Therefore, the delay in Iodging the FIR (EgoP-1A) is not properly’expiained, which is fatal to the case of the prosecution. A 13. The prosecution did not lead evidence which could show that the appellants, being aware of the fact that complainant Shivbati (PW—1) belongs to Scheduled Caste, knowingly insulted or intimidated her. The prosecution did not produce caste certificate of the complainant. 1 4. The prosecution has not collected any material against the appellants to show that the appellants committed the offence \ punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, 1989. 6 we 15. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants are set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against them. lt is stated that they are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties stand discharged. Sd/- ‘ R.S. Sharma Judge Gopal