HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, ILASPU BR (_§inqle Bench: Hon’ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J)': Criminal Appeal No. 745 of 192 9 Rudhan Singh Vs. M ’The State of. adhya Pradesh (Now State of Chhattisgarh) JUDGENT M Post forJudgment :3 /09/2o1o ,f niaz Sd/- SUNILKUMARsngHA l 1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR (Sinqle Bench: Hon’ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J) Criminal Appeal No. 745 of 19g Rudhan Singh, aged 55 years, son of Ramadhin Singh Thakur, resident. of Ward No. 14, Kawardha, District Rajnandgaon, MP. (No Chhattisgarh) Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh (Now. State of Chhattisgarh) (Appeal under Section 374 (2) of The Code of Criminal Procedure 1973) Appearance: ‘ Mr Ravi Bhagat Advocate forthe appellant Mr Rajendra Tnpathi Panel Lawyer for the State RESPONDENT JUDGMENT ( :o9.2o10) Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. 'Appellant- Rudhan Singh stands convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khairagarh, Camp—Kawardha in Special Criminal Case No. 59/91 on 26‘“ ofJune, 1992. (1) (2') The appellant has been convicted u/s 3 (j) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocmes) Act 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Specral Act ) and sentenced to undergo R l for one year & to pay fine of Rs 500/— in /" default of payment of fine to further undergo R.l. for two months. \ a I w 3 @ 2 Criminal Appeal No. 745 0f 1992 ‘ ‘ (3) The appellant and co-accused- Chandrika were prosecuted Ules 294, 506 Part-II and 324 IPC and Section 3 (1) (X) of the Special Act. The allegations are that on 24.5.91, they abused the complainant, Bhagwandas (PW-1), taking the name'of caste ”chamar"; threatened him and appellant-Rudhan Singh caused injury on his left'hand by knife. The First Information Report (Ex.-. P/4) was lodged by compiainant- Bhagwandas. Bhagwandas was sent for medical examination through requisition Ex.-Pl1 -A and was examined by Dr. R.K. Bakshi (PW-5). He found two abrasions on \;// wane A/ the middle of his right palm and opined that the said injuriesLcaused by hard and blunt object. The injury report is EXmP/‘l. The prosecution came with the case that the accused persons ‘ ' intentionally insulted the complainant who belongs to scheduled caste community and they also threatened and assaulted‘him. / (4) The learned Sessions Judge acquitted co-accused- Chandrika on the ground that no offence Was proved against him. Appellant'— Rudhan Singh was also acquitted of the charges framed u/ss 294, 506 Part-ll, 324 & 323 IPC. However he was convicted u/s 3 (1) (X) of the Special Act and sentenced as aforementioned. (5) Mr. Ravi Bhagat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, argued that in the facts and circumstances of the case, an offence u/s 3 (1) (x) of the Special Actwould‘no‘t be made out; it was not proved that the complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste, ' A 7 "chamar" community. He takes me to the evidence of complainant. > 3 Criminal Appeal N0. 745 of 1992 (6) Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, learned Panel Lawyer appearing. on behalf of the State, opposed these arguments and supported th Judgment passed by the Sessions Court. (7) .I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the sessions case. (8) Section 3 (1) (x) of the Special Act provides that whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or av~8cheduled Tribe in any place within public view, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six. months but which may extend to five years 7 and withfine. To bring a case u/s 3 (1) (x) of the Special Act the ingredients to be proved, therefore, shall be-that the victim must be the member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and the insults 0r intimidation caused to the victim must be intentionally on the ground that the victim was a member of either a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. xaf (9) in the present case, no caste-certificate of the victimhas been flied. Even victim— Bhagwandas (PW-1) categorically admitted, in his ' cross—examination Para-6, that he was not the member of “chamar” aste. H_e clearly deposed that d W TriTiTl im :léi é“. ln light of the above categorical admissionbythe victim in his cross—examination, the first and foremost requirement of Section 3 (1) of the Special Act e c 4 (@g was nbt establis'hed by 'the prosecution. Even after going through me ehtire evidence of Bhagwandas (PW-1)., it never appears that the alleged act was committed against him on the ground that he was a member of a Scheduied'Caste.‘ No evidence has been led to establish this requirement too. It was not the case of the prosecution ‘ that the accused persons assaulted the victim since he was a. member of Scheduled Caste. In absence of evidence to that effect, Section 3 (1) (x) has not application. Criminal Appeal No. 745 of 1992 (10) We note that the State has not filed any appeal/revision against the acquittal of the accused persons of the charges framed / under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code‘. {is (11): Since the prosecution could not establish the ingredients of the offence punishable u/s 3 (1) (x) of the SpeciaIAct,‘ as stated above, the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant under ' aforementioned Section of the Special Act, therefore, cannot be, sustained and the same deserve to be set-aside. (12) In the result, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence-awarded to the appellant u/s 3 (,1) (x) of the Special Act are set—aside and he is acquitted of the charges framed against him. v ‘ It is stated that the appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and surety stands discharged. Ff’N Sd/— r, SUNE‘KUMARw , ‘ “gluf‘ge r, t9 l mm