'^ ^f COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH AT BSLASPUR SJnaleBench : Hon'bieShri DJIJD Raosaheb Deshmukh. J. Criminal Appeai No.90 of 2002 ApDeltant Respondent Keiu Ram, S/o Gahjeet Verma, agedl about 45 years, resident of VHIage Panjni, P.S. BaJoda Bazar, Tah. Baioda Bazar, Distt. Raipur, C.G. versys Stete of Chhattisgarh Cnminal Appeai under Section 374(2) of the Code of Crimina! Procedure Present: Shri Goutam Khetrapai, coynsel for the appeilant, Shri P.R.Patankar, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. ORALJUDGMENT (Passed on this 18th day of IWarch, 2009) Shri Goutam Khetrapai, learned counsel for the appeilant was heard cn default of appearance of the appeiiant on 8-12-2003. (2) Learned counsei for the appellant submitted that pursuant to a warrant of arrest issued against the appeilant by this Court on 19-12- 2008, the appellant has already been arrested and sent to jail on 12-2- 2009. Copy of the order-sheet of the Court of Speciai Judge (Atrocities), Raipur is also fited, which is taken on record. (3) Learned counsei for the appellant prayed that ths's is an admftted appea! and pending slnce the year 2002 and shouid be heard finaliy. (4) Prayer is not opposed. (5) Heard finatiy. (S) The appeiiant is convicted under Section 3(1 )(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the ScheduSed Tribes (PreventSon of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (henceforth <the Acf), under Section 451 ofthe Sndlan Pena! Code, under -2-- Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigoroys Imprisonment for 6 months and fine of Rs.500/- and in defautt to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for 1 month under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, sentenced tiil rissng ofthe Court and fine of Rs.500/- and in default to undergoadditional rigorous imprisonment for 1 month under SectlQrs 451 of the Indian Penal Code, sentenced rigorous imprisonment for 28 days and fine of Rs.1,000/- and in defautt to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for 2 months under Section 323 of the tndian Penai Code by the Specia! Judge under the Act, Raipur in Special Sessions Tria! No.70/2000 bythejudgmentdated 10-12-2001. (7) Learned counsei for the appellant submitted at the very outsc-t that he would not press the appeal so far as the conviction of the appellant under Sections 451 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code is concemed, since the appellant has already undergone sentence awarded by the tearned Special Judge for those offences. (8) In view of the submission, the appeal was heard only as regards the convictlon ofthe appeilant for the offence under Sectlon 3(1 )(x) ofthe Act. (9) Learned counsel for the appeliant argued that in order to bring home the guiit of the appellant under Section 3(1 )(x) of the Act, it was necessary for the prosecution to establish that the intentional jnsult or intjmldation with intent to humiiiate a member of a Scheduied Caste or a Scheduied Tribe in ©nyplace within pubiic view should have been on the ground that such a member shouid be a person ofa Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. in the alternative, learned counsel for the appe!!ant aiso argued that the appeliant has already undergone rigorous imprisonment for 3 months and 22 days and, therefore, the sentence -^- avi/arded by the ieamed Special Judge for the offence under Section 3(1 )(x) of the Act should be reduced to already undergone by the appeiiant. (10) On the other hand, Shri P.R.Patankar, iearned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent argued in support of the impugned judgment and submitted that no leniency deserves to be shown to the appeliant in view of the manner In which the appeliant insuited and intimidated the prosecutrix, a member ofthe Scheduled Caste. (11) Having heard the rival submissions, S have perused the record. There is overwhelming evidencs on record which proves that the appellant had huried fiSthy abuses to the prosecutrix, a member of the Schsduled Caste and taking the name of her caste pierced a sharp bamboo stick on her private part. Medicai evidence aiso lends supportto the testimony of the prosecutrix. The learned Special Judge has, on the basis of overwheiming evldence on record, rightly convicted the appeiiant for the offence under Section 3(1 )(x) of the Act. The argument that It was necessary for the prosecution to establish that the Intentjonai insult or intimidationwith intent to humiliate a member of a ScheduSed Caste or a Scheduied Tribe in any place within pubilc view should have been on the ground that such a member shouJd be a person of a Scheduied Caste or a Scheduied Tribe, does not hold ground because such a requirement is found only in Section 3(2)(v) of the Act and not under Section 3(1 )(x) ofthe Act. The argument, therefore,fails. (12) So far as the argument relating to reduction of the sentence is concerned, 1 am of the considered oplnion that the manner in which the appellant had hurled fiithy abuses to the prosecutrix, a member of the Scheduled Caste and assauited her, no leniency requires to be shown to -^- (^. the appellant, so far as the sentence awarded by the learned Speciat Judge is concerned. (13) Thsre is no merit in this appeai, which js accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge Oopa! ^ INB^N^'