.mmgawm IN THE HIGH OGUR‘I‘ OF JUDICATURE AT JABALPUR C 0609 9 é. éirr m)!I”llllllHlW”HIM”!!! Cr.A.No. \Q‘é of 1996 ég 3W W ( :j Bhikhgm. aged about 35V§ears, r/ (/f son of Dheluram Jaiswl; a Appellant: Accused resident of village alari, P.s,1=a1ari;‘ District Raipur,M.P. Ver$u$ State o£ Madhya PradesH 1" CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (2 ) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE,1973 P HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI$GARH AT 3ILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Ju$tice Pritinker Diwaker) Crimina! Appeal No. 1168 of 1996 APPaLLANT Bhikham VERSU$ RESPGNDENT State of Madhya Pradesh Shri Ravi Bhagat; counsel for the appenant. Shri Vivek Sharma, PL frJr the State. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER $ECTIGN 3?4 {2) 0f THE CODE OF CRiMiNAi. PROCEDUAE J U D G M E N T (39.03.2011) ‘r\ ‘ v :2 The present appeal arises out of the jucigment and Order dated,10.07.1996 passed by Speeiai Judge, Raisur in Speciai Sessions Trial No. 185 of 1996 convicting the accused/appeilant under $ection 3 (1) (x) of $cheduled Castes and Scheduied Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short ‘the Act’) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and pay fine of Rs, 500,. in defauit of payment of fine to further undergo simpie imprisonment for six months. h. PI‘HN r 2. Brief facts of the case are that on .16.0S.1994, written report Ex. P-1 was lodged by the complainant Amarchand Kurre (PW-3) against five persons including the present appellant alleging in it that he is Satnami by caste Le. Scheduled Caste and since last 7—8 years he has been dealing in grain‘with Jaiswal brothers. On 04.03.1994 the Jaiswal brothers took paddy amounting Rs..5iii,.00l.) and made a promise to pay within 15 days but the same was not given to him.‘ On 03.05.1994 he went to Palari to collect his money. At that time Dauial Jaiswal was sitting in the shop and "CW— x -Qv asked him to wait tm arrivat af‘the appeliant. After 5ome time the appellant came there and started hurling abuses by filthy language and also calling him ‘Chamar’. It is alleged that the incident was witnessed by Mahesh Agrawal (PW-1) and Shesh 'Chandravanshi (PW—2), On (38.031995 he went to village ’ Bhainsa and made request fer his payment but there too he was abused by Pyare Jaiswal and his brdther Rajendra Jaiswal by calling him ‘Chamar’. It is further alleged that Jalswal Brothers have grabbed his 508 bags of paddy amounting Rs, 1,30,000 and they have also insulted him by abusing in the name of his caste; Based on this report, FIR Ex.P-3 was registered against the present appellant and Daulal Jaiswal for the offence under section 3 (1) (x) of the Act and after investigation Challan was filed on 1108.1994 for the said offence. 3; _So as to hold the accused persons guilty, prosecution has examined 04 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 charge levelled against them and pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case. éli‘N/W R’ 4. After hearing the parties the trial Court has acquitted the co-accused Daulal Jaiswal of the offence under section 3 (1) (x) of the Act but convicted and sentenced the present appellant for the said offence. ~ 5. Contention of Shri Bhagat: leamed cobnsel for the appellant is that there is an inordinate delay of 13 days in lodging the written report and the said delay has not been explained by the complainant as required under the law. He submits that a civil nature of transaction has been converted into a case of criminal nature by the complainant just because @ «3" he beiongs to $chedu:ed Caste. He further submits that a typed written report was Iodged by the complainant and a bare perusal makes it clear that. the same has been drafted articulately to ensure the involvement of the accused in a ‘criminal case. 6. Qn the other hand supporting the impugned judgment it has been argued by $hri S‘harma, learned counsel for the V’ State that. even if a typed written repert has been lodged: it will not make any difference so far as commission of the \ ”I offence is concerned. He submits that the delay in lodging l/t the written report has been expiained by the complainant as V) required under the law. He further submits that the statement J Vof the complainant (PW-3) has been duily supported by / Mahesh Agrawal (PW-1) and Shesh Narayan (PW-2). 7. ’ l-leard counsel for the parties and perused the material — available on record including the judgment impugned. 8. Complainant Amarchand Kurre (PW-3) in his Court statement has stated that he is ‘Satnami’ by caste which comes under Scheduied Caste category. In the year 1994 2g there was some business dealing in between him and the S brother of the appellant namely Ram Chandra Jaiswal who Q had taken 205 bags of paddy from him promising that he “I would pay the cost of the paddy within two days. When he demanded the said money, Rs.2,000 were given to him by Pyarelal from the shop situated at village Bhainsha whereas Rs. LEGO were given by Bhikham and Daulal from the shop situatedat village Palari and assurance was given by them for rest of the amount. According. to him when he again went to ,1 W the accused persons for his money: he was abused in the name of his caste and also threatened. The incident was witnessed by Mahesh Kumar Agrawal (PW-1) and Shesh -q— Narayan (PW—2), Qn 08,05.1994 when he went to the shop situated at Bhainsha he was abused by the appellant and his brother and Other relatives‘by caning him ‘Saie Chamar’and aisa using filthy language. In crass-examinatian he admits that the business transaction was dene with Ramchandra Jaiswal and he came to know that the said Ramchandra Jaiswal had absconded after taking money from number of agriculturists. According to him when he demanded money from the brothers of Ramchandra, they told him that you had x ”i made the business transaction with someone eise and it would be better'to demand money from him. He has denied w t the fact that in one criminal case (Case No, 186/96) which is - 0 pending against Pyarelal Jaiswal and others he has stated that J the persons who were present at the shop situated at Bhainsa / had told him to lodge the repot, He admits that he did not lodge the report on the date when the incident took place at Palari and after about one week when the second incident took place at Bhainsa, the report was lodged. Earlier he had gone to lodge the report at Palari but the same was not registered and then he came to lodge the report at Raipur. 24 However, he has not disclosed the fact in his written report that earlier he had made an attempt to lodge the report at C Palari. He admits that till date he has not lodged any repoit against Ram Chandra Jaiswal who had taken paddy from him, ”l There appears to be material contradictions and omissions‘in the statement of this witness and he admits about the same in paragraphs - 14 & 15 of his evidence, Mahesh Kumar Agrawal (PW-1) has stated that on the date of incident he had gone to Palari along with $hesh Narayan (PW-2) in relation to Panchayat election. In front of the shop of the appellant their vehicle got'break clown. 0n being called for tea when they went to the shop of the appellant, saw the complainant demanding money from the ab;- appeilant. There arose hot‘talk's between them and the appellant abused the complainant in the name of his caste. He admits that there appears t0 be material contradictions and omissions in his Court‘statement from that of his case diary statement. Shesh Narayan (PW—2) has made almost similar statement as has been made by Mahesh Kumar Agrawal(PW—1). There also appears to be material contradictions and omissions in the Court statement of this witness from that of his case diary statement. Siyaram (PW- 4)- the Head Constable had done the preliminary enquiry and thereafter registered the offence. The Investigating Officer has not been examined by the prosecutien, k $\% i; 9. Minute examination of the evidence makes it clear that there was some business transaction between the complainant, theappellant and his brothers. It appears that as one of the brothers of the appellant namely Ram Chandra Jaiswal absconded after taking money from various agriculturists including the complainant, the complainant was expecting money from other jaiswal brothers. Admittedly there is an inordinate delay of 13 days in lodging the written report Ex.P-1 and the said delay has not been properly explained by the complainant. The possibility also cannot be ruled out that the report was lodged to put pressure upon the appellant and his brother so that they may make the payment to the complainant. There are lot of contradictions and omissions in the statements of the complainant and the other two witnesses namely Mahesh Kumar Agrawal (PW—1) and Shesh .Narayan (PW—2). The entire evidence as adduced by the prosecution does not inspire full confidence of this COurt and it will not be safe for this Court to convict the appellant for the offence under section 3 (1) (x) of the Act. \ éfidh R’ @ *6— 10. In the result, the appeai is ailowed. The impugned judgment and order of the Court below convicting and sentencing the appeiiant under Sectian 3 (1) (x) of Scheduled Castes and $cheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atmcities) Act is hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted. Since the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds stand discharged. sax- ‘ Pritinker Diwaker Judge l‘ , l ix l l K é\$\ i) \ £13m R’ ,