'iy ".^" ^^ y^^lf ——• ^SIrt^M^^.-- I N TKfi; rU.GH.'CuUR'I'OF |iA?:^i^,.; ^R^T'ESn. AT. •J^BAL^'UE.» ^WS^ ^ ^^iM^ (: CR-XMXHAL'AFFEAL '^0.,.\ OV' QF 1096.. : '. B ^y:: A£!PEALLANT DBNUR^^Aged • about1^26 -years- 5/-0. Shra: L^xman pandey- R/o:..: .Nci^agaon P^S.., Bag BQ.hra' Distt<» RMpUR (K.f} ^_ ^^^ • iL^M^. ESI-ONDENTS CGNV^.CI-OH' U/s 3(1) (10) of / pre-venti on. of Attrocifles o n 3 .<» C,& 3, T^'. ^.c-t o. .,,.. St&te or. M^f< tKroucih the p ol.xce Station Speciai Thaaa S.aipur (M.P). •oEHTENCE ' •• ,.^'"' R»<r^. for 6 %©nths /. ana fl.ne Rs, 500^,. (pive Hundred) orily •DeFOsi.fted.^ ^_ CRXHlNAL' AppB^^/'UNI^ER SECTlQIM -374 CF- CRXMl <L . FROCEDURE 'coTm^ ~ " "~~~ ~°—"— ^ HIGM COURT OF CMHATTISOARH AT BIl.ASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritjnker Diwaker) CriminaS Appeai No. 1001 of 1996 APPILLANT RESPONDENT VERSUS Denuram State of Madhya Pradesh Shri Santosh Bharat^ counsej for the appeJJanfc. Shrs Ashish Gupta, P.L. for the State. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDKIGt ^ECTXOSM 374 f2) QF TME CODE OF CR2NZNAL PROCEDURE. UlD_q M E N T (24.02.2011) The present appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 10.04.1996 passed by special Judge, Raipur in Spedal Crimjnal Case No. 238 of 1996 convicting the accused/appellant under Section 3 (1) (x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short lthe Act') and sentenclng him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and pay fine of Rs. 500^ in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months, 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 10,03.1991 a written report Ex.P-1 was lodged by the complasnant Mehttar (PW-1) allegjng that on 06.03.1991 at about 12 noon when he was washing his buffalo.. the accused/appellant came there chasing another buffalo of one Govind Satnamj. The appellant was huriing abuses using filthy language and saying that ^TR w^ ^N II^TT ^t i^ ^ tw repeatedSy to which the compiainant told him that why he was abusing time and again and if he has to hurl abuses, he should do the — 3. ^ same before the owner of the buffalo. Upon hearing this appellant aiso abused him by using fHthy language and caKing him 'Chamar'. In the meanwhile other acquitted accused namely Laxman, Durjan and Lalman came there and atl the four accused persons aiso beat him and then fled away, Based on this written report, FIR Ex. P-2 was registered by the police on 10.03,1991 under Sections 294/323, 506/34 of IPC and 3 (l) (x) of the Act. After completion of investigation, Challan was filed on 02,04.1991 against the four accused persons for the sald offence whereas the Court below framed charge against them under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act. During pendency of the appeal^ the co-accused Laxman died and therefore the remaining three accused persons jnduding the present appeilant were tried by the trial Court. 3. So as to hold the accused persons guiltyf prosecution has examined 06 witnesses in support of its case. Statements of the accused persons were also recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied the charges jevelled against them and pleaded their innocence and faise impltcation in the case. 4. After hearing the parties the trial Court has acquitted the co-accused Durjan and Lalman of the offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act but convicted and sentenced the present appeSlant for the said Act. 5. Contention of the Learned counsel for the appellant ts that on account of triviaj issue the appeliant has been falsely jmplicated. Me submitsthat as on the basis of same set of evidence once the trial Court has acqultted the co-accused Durjan and LaSman, the present appellant also ought to have been acquitted. He submits that in fact the appellant was ..^' ::?.• •^ ^" @ "•3- hurling abuses to the buffalo and not to the compjainant. Me submits that the conduct of the appeliant was natural because cattie of someone had damaged hss crops by entering his fieid and out of annoyance he was hurling abuses. He further submits that there is no evldence on record to show that the complainant was subjected to abusive language just because he bejongs to Scheduled Caste which is the baslc ingredient of Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act. 6. On the other hand supporting the Impugned judgment it has been argued by the learned counsel for the State that the jmpugned judgment is strlctly in accordance with law and there is no infirmity in the same. 7. CompSainant Mehttar (PW-l) in his court statement has stated that he belongs to Satnami community whereas the three accused persons present in the Court belong to Pandey community. On the date of incident when he was washing his buffalo, the appellant abused him by using filthy janguage and calling him ^Chamar'. While hurjlng abuses the appetlant was also saylng that ^Chamar our crops were grazed". This witness asked the appellant to approach those persons and teli them whose buffaloes grazed hts crop because his buffalo did not damage appellant's crop. Thereafter he was abused and assaulted by the accused persons. In cross-examination he admits the facfc that in fact the accused persons were hurling abuses to the buffalo of one Parsuramand then he inten/ened- in the matter, He further admlts that the report was iodged after four days of the incident and he has not given any explanation for the same. 8. A bare reading of the statement of this wltness reflects that he has not uttered a single word as he belongs to Scheduled Caste^ he was abused by the appeilant. Present © -LI" appears to be a case where crops of the appellant were damaged by someone's buffalo and therefore the accused./appejlant was hurling abuses at the buffalo and not to the complainant. However when the compjainant intervened in the matter there appears to be some aitercation between them. Thus/ the basic ingredjents of Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act are completeiy missing m the case in hand. Jainandan (PW-2) has made almost similar statement as made by the complainant and he too has not deposed that the appeliant had hurled abuses in order to insult or Intimfdate or humjjiate the complainant just because he was a member of Scheduied Caste category. Sjmjlar is the posjtion with the statement of the witness namely Baiaram (PW-4). 8. Minute examjnation of the evidence makes it clear that the complainant was not abused by the appeSlant with an intention to jnsutt^ jntjmidate or humiljate just for the reason that he belongs to scheduled caste. It appears to be a naturaf conduct of the appellant where his valuable crops were damaged by someone's buffalo^ therefore out of annoyance and anger he was hurling abuses at the buffalo and to its owner and not to the complainant and this fact has been admitted by the complainant and the other two wjtnesses namely Jainandan (PW-2) & Balram (PW-4). Mowever after inter^ention of the complainant in the matter some altercation might have taken place between them, Furthermore.. an inordjnate delay of 4 days in lodglng the written report has not been explained by the complainant also creates doubt in the mind of this Court. That apart there js no documentary evidence on record t6 show the cast of the complainant which is sine-qua-non for bringing home the offence under the provlsions of the said Act. Thus,. in the absence of any cogent and djnchlng evidence against the accused./appellant that he abused the complainant to jnsult^ jntimjdate or humjljate hjm [^. a^- -^ " just because he belongs to scheduled caste community it wouid not be safe for this Court to uphold his conviction recorded by the Court below. 9. Accordingly^ the appeal is allowed. Judgment impugned is hereby set aside. Accused/appeliant ls acquitted of the charge levelled against hjm. As he is already on bail^ his bail bonds stand discharged. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge