{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.320 OF 1997 Pandit Kashinath Patil R/o Dadpimpri, Tq-Chalisgaon Dist-Jalgaon APPELLANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ....... Mr.P.R.Patil, Advocate for appellant Mrs.Y.M.Kshirsagar, APP for respondent / State ....... [CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR, J.] DATE : 18 th September 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Challenge in this appeal is to judgment rendered by learned Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, in Special Case No.15/1996 whereby the appellant came to be convicted for offences punishable u/s 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and also u/s 448, 352 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. He has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment of one month for offence {2} punishable u/s 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. He has been further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month for commission of rest of the 3 offences i.. u/s 448, 352 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Briefly stated, prosecution case is that, the appellant did not like that complainant – PW4 Jaywantabai, who belongs to Scheduled Caste, was elected as Sarpanch of the village Dasegaon. On 24 th April 1996, he went to her house at about 7.30 a.m. He was in drunken condition. A bottle of liquor was in his hand. He kicked door of the house and inquired where the whore Sarpanch, Dhedgi had gone. He threatened that he would not leave her alive on that day. Then, PW Jaywantabai was sitting inside the house. The appellant rushed forward to beat her. On hearing the abuses addressed by the appellant to the complainant, PW6 Baliram and other witnesses went to the spot. They intervened and took away the appellant. While leaving the house, he broke the liquor bottle near platform of the house. Complainant-PW Jaywantabai lodged FIR against the appellant. The police carried out certain investigation and chargesheeted the appellant. 3. At the trial, in all 7 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Considering the material placed on record, the appellant came to be convicted and sentenced as described herein above. {3} 4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 5. There is no dispute about the fact that complainant- PW Jaywantabai was elected as Sarpanch of the village. The appellant is inhabitant of adjoining village called Dadpimpri. It has come on record that agricultural land of the appellant is situated in proximity of the house of the complainant-PW Jaywantabai. The defense of the appellant was that he has constructed a house within the gaothan area of village Nave Dasegaon and PW Jaywantabai was demanding Rs.5000/- from him to accord permission, but he had refused to pay anything. He pleaded that he was falsely framed in the criminal case though he did not insult complainant-PW Jaywantabai on the ground that she belongs to Scheduled Caste. There is no dispute about the fact that she is a member of Scheduled Caste, being Mahar by caste. There is also no dispute about the fact that the appellant is a member of higher caste. It may be made clear, at the outset, that the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr.Patil, has not challenged conviction and sentence rendered by the Sessions Court in respect of offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code. The appeal is not pressed into service to the extent of said conviction and sentence of fine, but is pressed into service only to the extent offence u/s 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. It is not necessary, therefore, to examine whether the {4} conviction and sentence for offence punishable u/s 448, 352 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code is legal and proper. 6. Material points for determination are : i) Whether the appellant intentionally insulted complainant – PW Jaywantabai by utterances that he would not leave Dhedgi as Sarpanch and by referring her as whore of the village, within a public view and thereby committed the offence within the meaning of section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act? ii) Whether the investigation is carried out by unauthorized police officer and, therefore, the trial is vitiated? 7. Before I proceed to scrutinize evidence tendered by the prosecution, it is pertinent to notice that Rule 7 of the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 mandates that the investigation must be done by a police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. The said Rules came into force w.e.f. 31st March 1995. The incident, giving rise to the present prosecution, occurred on 24th April 1996. Obviously, the compliant of PW Jaywantabai ought to have been investigated by a police officer of the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police or any one above the said rank. Admitted position in the present case is that the investigation was carried out by PW7 PSI Ghule. He recorded statements of witnesses and filed chargesheet on basis of the material gathered during course of {5} investigation. There is no explanation as to why Rule 7 of the said Rules is not complied with. The non compliance of the mandatory Rule would render the investigation bad in the eye of law. In such a case, if the defect is brought to the notice of the Court at the earliest then, fresh investigation can be directed in order to seek compliance of Rule 7. However, this is a very old case. The incident occurred before about 13 years and, therefore, such exercise may not be appropriate. 8. Coming to the evidence tendered by the prosecution, it may be gathered that PW Jaywantabai supported her complaint i.e. FIR (Exhibit-23). She narrated as to how the incident occurred in the relevant morning. Her version purports to show that the appellant entered her house in drunken condition. He reached at door of the house, after passing through the courtyard. He kicked the door and intruded in the house. He then rushed to assault her. Simultaneously, he addressed the insulting words “Dhedgi-Mahar Sarpanch” and threatened that he would not leave her alive. Her version purports to show that the appellant also called her a whore ( ). She narrated as to how the neighbours like Chintaman Luba, Baliram Sampat Pawar rushed there and they and her husband took away the appellant from the house. While leaving the house, he broke the glass bottle near the otta (platform) situated in the courtyard of the house. She deposed that she went to the Government Hospital at Chalisgaon for treatment, as was referred by the police. In fact, she was not assaulted by the {6} appellant. Allegedly, he had only passed threat that he would not leave her alive. Why for then the medical examination was required to be conducted is not clear. It appears from the extract of the Municipal Dispensary at Chalisgaon that she had been to the Hospital with alleged history of “bad words”. It appears that she was not injured at all. The testimony of PW2 Dr.Suhas would make it clear that he examined the complainant-PW Jayawantabai on 24th April 1996 because she complained of giddiness and mental disturbance. He narrated that he noticed that she was mentally normal. Thus, she pretended to be abnormal and unnecessarily attempted to obtain some medical certificate. This conduct of PW4 Jaywantabai discloses her nature. It is explicit that she has no compunction while seeking medico legal certificate, though she was not assaulted and injured. She admitted that the appellant is not a member of the village Panchayat nor is he a voter from her village. There is no material reason for the appellant to be annoyed due to election of PW4 Jaywantabai as Sarpanch of the village. 9. In support of the case about alleged incidence, PW5 Dhrupadabai and PW6 Baliram were examined by the prosecution. On going through their versions, it is amply clear that PW Dhrupadabai may not have witnessed the incident. Her name does not figure in the FIR (Exhibit-23). She is an old aged women. She did not refer to abuses uttered by the appellant in relation to PW Jaywantabai, particularly, calling her the village whore. She admits that PW Jaywantabai had called her to gave statement before the {7} police. Though she is related to the complainant-PW Jaywantabai yet she attempted to suppress such fact. It is probable that afterwards she gave statement before the police at behest of complainant-PW Jaywantabai. 10. From testimony of PW Baliram, it may be gathered that he resides in a house situated at a distance of about 100 feet from the house of PW Jaywantabai. He claims that he heard commotion from near house of PW Jaywantabai. So, he went out of his house. He noticed that there was a quarrel going on between the appellant and the complainant-PW Jaywantabai (Sarpanch). He later on went to the house of PW Jaywantabai. He does not refer to the insult of PW Jaywantabai by the appellant, by calling her as village whore. He admitted that he is working as a voluntary teacher and, therefore, regularly he is required to keep contact with the village Panchayat. What transpires from his evidence is that he went to the house of the complainant-PW Jaywantabai after a short while, when he heard the commotion. 11. From recitals of the spot Panchanama, the FIR and the Charge framed against the appellant vide Exhibit-6, it is explicit that the alleged incident of insult caused to complainant-PW Jaywantabai is said to have occurred inside her residential house. Only a part of the incident, of braking the liquor bottle, did occur out side the house or in the courtyard of the house. The question is, whether the house of the complainant-PW Jaywantabai can be {8} regarded as “the place within the public view”. The place, as described from the spot Panchanama, is within the four walls. The complainant-PW Jaywantabai deposed that the appellant barged in the house after giving a kick blow on the entrance door and that is why he was also charged for offence u/s 448 of the Indian Penal Code. 12. In “Sarita Shyam Dake V/s Senior Police Inspector & Another” 2008 (1) Bom.C.R. (Cri) 417, a Division Bench of this Court held that when the utterances were not shown to be visible or audible to third party, the insult alleged could not come within the ambit of section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The Division Bench considered the expression “within a public view” and held that such expression not only relates to the location defined by the word “place” but is subject to condition that the incidence of insult or intimidation to the member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe must be witnessed by public. It is observed: “Therefore, the incidence of insult or intimidation has to occur in a place accessible to and in the presence of the public.” 13. The house of the complainant-PW Jaywantabai cannot be said to be a place which was accessible to the public. Nor it can be said that the place was such that the incidence could be viewed by the public without any difficulty. In “Balu Bajirao Galande V/s {9} State of Maharashtra” 2006 ALL MR (CRI) 3197 a Single Bench of this Court held that the expression “within public view” must be construed to mean that insult or humiliation must take place in the presence of or in the proximity of at least one independent person. Faced with this difficulty, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor invited my attention to observation in “Swaran Singh & others V/s State through Standing Counsel & Another” 2008 CIR L.J. 4369. The Apex Court held that the expression “place within public view” as used in section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act must not be confused with the expression “public place”. It is held that a place can be a private place, but yet within public view. In the given case, the allegations in the FIR indicated that the first informant was insulted by calling him a “chamar” when he stood near car which was parked at gate of premises. The fact situation in the given case was on different footing. Herein, the first part of the incident occurred inside the house of PW4 Jaywantabai. It is more probable that after the fracas, between the complainant and the appellant, some neighbours gathered there and they took away the appellant from the house. The possibility is that complainant-PW4 Jaywantabai had blown up the incident out of proportion. 14. Having regard to the foregoing reasons and the fact that the investigation has been done by incompetent police officer, I am inclined to hold that the appellant is entitled to get benefit of reasonable doubt in so far as offence punishable u/s 3 (1) (3) of the {10} Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is concerned. The appeal is, therefore, partly allowed. The appellant is acquitted of the offence punishable u/s 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The fine amount, if deposited, in respect of conviction for the said offence, be refunded to him. The appeal is dismissed to the extent remaining part of the conviction and sentence for offence punishable u/s 448, 352 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. Appeal is partly allowed. [V.R.KINGAONKAR, J.] drpcriapl302-97