.^ I57 ^ff-vf j": ,i;t£:: ii;2jj£ai,ij^it;3 IH EiE HIffiI COURT OE JBDICATITBE AT JABAI.PUR (M.P.) C8I.MINAL APPEAL BO,_/^<-),/1995... " Appellant: Accused. . HaniBOban S/o Pulaa Bsm,SaliEl, aged aboat 26 years» S./o Village •,Gull<»</Police Statiorf^Araag, Bistrict, Saipar CM.P.)^ -VersHs- ^s_@pn<3ent. •sl-»i: State of Madhya Prade'st Throagli- police Station, ^rang, ©Istrict- Raipur (M.P.). CRIHIHAL APPEAL..QNDER SECTIOH 374 (2) OP THE CODE OF CBIHINAL P80CEDBKE 1973 / nt; sm a MSi HIQH COURT OF CHHAmSQARH AT BSLASPUR SB : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PMTINKER DXWAKER CR.A.NO. 1490/1995 Maninohaa versus State of Madhya Pradesh Shri C.R.Sahu, counsel for fhe appeBaat. Shri Vivek SIiarma, P.L. for fhe State. APPLICATIOiS U/S 374 (2) OF THE CR.P.C, JUDGMENT (04.08.2010) This appeal is directed again.st the judginsnt. dated 16.10.1995 passed by the S'pecial Judge, Raipur iu Special Cr. Case No. 226/1994 convictmg tbe accused./appeUaii.t for the offence pimishable under SeCtion 3(l)(x) of fhe SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocitiesj Act aad Section 186 of fhe IPC sentenciag hira to undei^o rigorous iinprisoninent for sbc inoattis aad to uadergo SI for one luonth aad fiiie of Rs. 100 respectively. 2. Briefly stated facts are that on 27.10.94, written report (Ex.P/l) was made by Basawan Kumar Maadle (P.W.l), Head master of the Primaiy Scbool, Gullu aUegmg ia it fhat on fhe said day at about 1.45 p.m.. accused/appellant caane to -the school ia & drunken conditioa, scolded fhe students of Class VI ^ / '' and when complainaat Upeudia Kumar Deshlahre iatervened in. the matter, he was abu^ed in a filthy language and also by his caste. Based on fhis written report, FIR Ex. P/2 was registered bythe police ori 27.10.94 itself. :111 3. So as to hold the accused/appeflaat guflty, fbe proseeutLon Kas exanuned iive witaesses. Stateiaent of the accused/'&ppUcantwas also recorded uader Section 313 oftbe Cr.P.C. iuwhich he denied the charges leveBed against hita aad °a*A,aa> ^ pleaded his nuiocence aa.d false inipUcation ia. the case, This apart one defence witness has also been exaiuiaed by him in support ofhis case. 4. After hearing.coiuisel for the parties, the trial Court has convicted aad sentenced fhe accused/appellant for tlie oifence as inentioned above. Hence this appeal. 5. Contention of the counsel for fhe appellaat is fh.at tlie appeUaat. has been falsely implicated because a.t the lelevant taae, teachers of fhe Primary School, GiiBii aeither used to attend fhe. school tu tiine aor they were iaterested ia teachiag. He submits fhat at ftie relevaat tiiae the. accused^appeUantwas fh.e meciber of School DcvelopBieBt Socicty arad. us fhat capacily, along with Koiaaa Lal Sabu, PreSident of fhe said society, used to waru aad insist fhe teachers to be pionipt aad proper iu fhe-scHool. He submits ftiat complainaDt Upendra Kuinar Deshlahre (P.W.-2) was residing in a dififerent vitlage and hardlv use to come to attend fhe school and even ifhe coiaes to school he use to be verv late for which fhere was general coiaplaiiit against hira. He also subinits tbat to save himself froin aay departinental action a false and concocted report has been lodged agaiast fhe appeBant. He furfh.er submits fhat during fbe pendency of fhis appeal, complaiiiant Upendra Kumar Desblahre and the present appellant have compromised fhe niatter aad suitable application has been filed. He furfher submits fh.at there is no evidence on record to show that the coniplauiaat was ever abused by his caste. '-1, ,/ 6.' '' On fhe other hand, supportiug the impiigned judgment, it has been argued by*8hri Shanna that tiie aianner ia which fhe appellaat has behaved with. ftie. teacher shows his atdtude and lus conviction is in accordaace witii law. He subnuts ftiat on fhe date ofuicident, the accused/appellaut entered the school ia a drunken condition and has Biisbehaved wifh the coinplamaut Upendia. Kuamr Deshlahre. ..ff' ^ El. 7. Basawan Kumar Mandle (P.W.-l) lodger of fhe FIR has stated that at tiie relevaat date i.e. on 27.10.94, he was workin! as In charge, Headniaster of the Middle School, GuUu aad coiaplaiuaitt Upendra Kuiaar Deshlahre was ttie Assistant Teacher. He has further stated that at about 1.45 p.ni. the accused/appeMant entered the school in drunken condition and started scolding tlie students of Glass VI & VII. Accordiag to him when complaiaant Upendra Kumar Deshlahre intervened iii the niatter, he was beaten by the accused aad was also abused by usiag filfhy language and by his caste. He has further stated that fhe accused/appeBaiit had also kicked the scooter of fhe coinplainant. Thei^after the village ineetuig was caUed and then fhe report Ex.P/1 was lcxlged. In cross examination, this witness adinits fhat fhe accused/appeUant was, one of the ineinber of School Developiaent Societe and it is fais du1y to keep his eyes ia the day to day activities of the school and he is entitied to enter fhe school. He has stated fhat fhe accused/appeUaiit had never abused him. 'and respects him as a teacher because he had taught fhe accused/appeUant. 8. Coniplaiaant Upendra Kum.ar Deshlalire (P.W.-2) has stated fhat he belougs'to Sataami caste and on fhe date of iacident when he was workiaa as teacher ia the school aad was teaching Class VIIIth he saw the accused/appeUaat scoldiag the students of Class VI & VIF-h aad when he intervened, he was abused by his caste aad oftier filthy language. He has furfher stated that Ii.e wa.s also beaten by the accused/appeHant. He has aSso' s^ated lliat the viUage ineeting was caHed but no \ defcision could be takea tu Q^ same. 9. P.W.3 Meghraj eyewitness of the iacident and was a student at fhe relevant time bas stated that the accused/appellajo.t had entered. fhe scliool aad bad scolded tfae students aad toeateu two students. He has fiirfher stated fhat '•fhe accused/apjiellant had abused the coinplaiaant by filthy language. TMs 'witaess has however, not stated that the ::i II cy-\ ^ complainajat was abused by his caste. Revati Bai (P.W.-4) is fhe bearsay witness. Surajbli.an Singh Rana (P.W.-5) is fhe Investigating Officer and has supported ttie prosecutioa case. D.W.-l Khoraan Lal Sahu Sarpanch of tfae vitlage as weU as President of Scaool Development Soc.iet\r has stated fhat CQmplauiant Upendra Kuraar Desblatire was residiag in different village wtiich is about 2Q km.s. away froin his workuig place and on several occasions tfae School Development Society had asked him to reside in fhe viBage i.e. fhe headquarter ofhis service however -he refused to reside there aad was not punctual, He has further stated that as the coinplaiiiant was not punctual in the school tb.e students used to play in fhe school picmises aad thereby fheir teacbuig was adversely affected. He has further stated that att the lueiubers of the School Developraent Society were asked to iaspect fhe school tim.e and agaux aild .on the date of iacident the acciised/ appeUaut had gone to inspect tb.e schooL 10. Minute examination of the evidence niakes it clear that soiue incMent niight have taken place on fhe date of iacident however, the evidence is not very einphatic on the point that ttie coinplamaait Upendra Kuinar Deshlahre was abused by his caste. The evidence also reflects ttiat the accused/appellant had entered the school but had never inisbehaved wifh the Principal (P.W.-l). Froin the evidence it is also clear that the appticant was meiaber of the School Developiuent Socieity aud Iias gone 'bn iaspection to school. Stateiaent of the defence witoess Khoman Lal lagaia creates doubt as to whefher it is the aceused^teppeBaiit who was at fault or he has been falsely implicated because the c<%iplauiant Upendra Kumar DesUahic was not venr punctual. Stateinent of the witness does not iaspiTe faU confidence of fhis Court and the possibility of false implication 'caanot be ruled out. Furthermore, bofh the appeUaat aud coiuplauiant have fBed joiat application for eomp6uadiBLg the offeiice aad both of them. are present before ^•fliis Court. and have stated that there was soiae liu.sun.derstaaaiiig betsyeen theia aad therefore fhe report was ^" lodged. Though the offence iuid.er Section 3(l)(x) of fhe SC/St (Prevention of AtFOciues) Act is not coinpoiindable but fhe effect of the saiue caa be considered. That apart, prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case beyond atl the re&sonable doubt aad in fhese circuinstaaees, ftie benefitof doubt fflust go to the accused/appeliant. 11. Inconclusion, the appeal is .allowed. Impugned judgment convicting aad seutenciug the accused/appeBant as nientioned above is set aside. He is acquitted of tbe charges levelled agaiast hun. Accused/appeBaiit is reported to be on baiL His bail toonds staad discharged. .' i pritinkerBiwafeer Jadge •- / ''o- A. J