*ia'»" :btw«»^^ c^ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J, Criminal Appeal No. 107 of 1995 Baburam & Another Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Now State of Chhattisgarh) JUDGMENT Post for Judgment :Z7-/06/2011 Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge .y.^-'F^.^ .V'^.^sS, "-t& ^'«':""l^'t X I 1 1 -, ~y j :'^,^y ^•S-a^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon^l^ShrLSunil Kymar Sinha, J. APPELLANTS RESPONDENT Criminal Appeal No. 107 of 1995 1 Baburam son of Shantiram Verma, aged about 32 years, resident of Bagbuda, P.S. Kasdol, District Raipur, M.P.(NowChhattisgarh) 2 Durgaprasad son of Milan Verma, aged about 40 years, resident of Bagbuda, P.S. Kasdol, District Raipur, M.P. (Now Chhattisgarh) Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh (Now State of Chhattisgarh), (Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) of The Code of Criminal Procedure. 19731 Appearance: Mr. Basant Kaiwarth, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Sandeep Yadav, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State. JUDGMENT (Z-^.06.2011) (1) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 3 of January, 1995 passed in Special Criminal Case No. 403/91 by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Raipur. By the impugned judgment, the appellants have been convicted u/s 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Special Act) and sentenced to undergo R.l. for 6 months. (2) The facts, briefly stated, are as under:- The allegations are that on 4.11.91 at about 5.00 p.m., the appellants abused Deonath (PW-1 - a member of Scheduled / ^^^?, '^ Criminal Aprieal No. 107 of 1995 Caste) in village Panchayat by using filthy language. Deonath (PW- 1) made typed report (Ex.-P/1) to police station Kasdol on 7.11.91 and a First Information Report (Ex.-P/2) was registered. The Panchayat was convened on account of taking of water. The appellants were saying that the water should be firstly filled in village tank, but Deonath was pressing that it should be firstly given for irrigation to his fields. In the written report the particular words of abuse used by the appellants were mentioned. However, in the evidence before the Court, the words told to be used were not similar. The learned Special Judge, relying on the evidence of Deonath (PW-1) and Shankar (PW-3), held that it was proved that the appellants abused the complainant (PW-1) in the above manner in village Panchayat, therefore, they were liable for punishment u/s 3 (1) (x) of the Special Act. (3) Mr. Basant Kaiwarth, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, argued that there is inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R.; the report appears to be malafide on village rivalry; in the report the specific language of abuse is quite different than the specific language said to be used in the Court deposition, therefore, this contradiction is material and the version ofthe complainant becomes doubtful. (4) On the other hand, Mr. Sandeep Yadav, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the State, opposed these arguments and supported the judgment passed by the Special Court. (5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records ofthe special case. /V. -^ Criminal Apoeal No. 107 of 1995 (6) In Ramii Suriva and another -Vs- State of Maharashtra. AIR 1983 SC 810, there was extra-ordinary delay in lodging the F.I.R. and there was also failure of the prosecution to explain the delay. The reason given by the prosecution for inordinate delay in reporting the incident to the police outpost was hardly convincing. The Supreme Court held that in such circumstances, the F.1.R. should be viewed with suspicion. (7) In Dilawar Sinah -Vs- State of Delhi. AIR 2007 SC 3234, it was held that in criminal trial one of the cardinal principles for the Court is to look for plausible explanation for the delay in lodging the report. Delay sometimes affords opportunity to the complainant to make deliberation upon the complaint and to make embellishment or even make fabrications. Delay defeats the chance of the unsoiled and untarnished version of the case to be presented before the Court at the earliest instance. That is why if there is delay in either coming before the police or before the Court, the Courts always view the allegations with suspicion and look for satisfactory explanation. If no such satisfaction is formed, the delay is treated as fatal to the prosecution case. (8) In Mahtab Sinah & Anr. -Vs- State of U.P.. AIR 2009 SC 2298. the incident took place few yards away from Police Station but eye- witness, informant did not report the matter to Police Station immediately. They got a written report prepared from one person and then went to Police Station with written report. The Supreme Court held the delay in reporting incident at police station creates doubt about truthfulness of prosecution case. Criminal Appeal No. 107 of 1995 (9) In the present case, the incident took place on 4.11 .91 and a typed report was lodged by Deonath (PW-1) on 7.11.91. There is no explanation either in the typed report (Ex.-P/1) or in the F.I.R. (Ex.-P/2) regarding the delay in lodging the report. If in fact, such incident would have occurred or the incident was in the manner as reported by the complainant, there was no reason for him to not report the matter immediately or at least on the next day, but the complainant did not do so and ultimately the matter was reported on the 4 day of the incident. Not offering any explanation for the delay, therefore, was fatal to the prosecution. (10) Now we shall examine the credibility of evidence of Deonath (PW- 1), Shankar (PW-3) and Bhojram (PW-4). (11) Deonath (PW-1) deposed that the appellants abused him in the Panchayat by using specific words by taking the name of his caste which he mentioned in deposition; whereas the words of abuse in the F.1.R. (Ex.-P/2) are quite different. Shankar (PW-3) also deposed about the words used by the appellants which are also different from the words of F.1.R. as also the words used in court deposition of Deonath (PW-1). Therefore, the specific words of abuse allegedly used by the appellants against the complainant were different in the Couri: evidence of complainant and in the F.1.R. lodged by him. Shankar (PW-3) gave altogether different words allegedly used by the appellants. The other witness of Panchayat i.e. Panchram (PW-2) turned hostile. In the cross- examination, he denied that the appellants had used abusing language against complainant- Deonath. Bhojram (PW-4) also used different words than the words deposed by the complainant. On / Crimmal Appeal No. 107 of 1995 appreciation of evidence of the above witnesses, we find thgt the above inter-se contradictions in their evidence and the contradiction in the contents of the written report (Ex.-P/1) and in the Court evidence were material and they create a doubt on the credibility of the prosecution case particularly in light of the above delay in lodging the F.1.R. (12) For the foregoing reasons, l am unable to sustainthe conviction of the appellants on the above set of evidence. (13) Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentences awarded to the appellants u/s 3 (1) (x) of the Special Act are set-aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against them. It is stated that the appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties stand discharged. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge vatti