••^^ ^ \/^V^ ^-t^-v. -^-^^^ ^-^-^' ^ v ^--^^'^^^T?<!%'^^--^^^-'^</^'^' w "C'Fd66o058289 OT •?H5 HIO? (X)TTHm. OP MABHTa ^PMSESH A3 JABALPTIg CriBiinal Appeal .H • -^ -^' • /t995 ii Appellani !! Manoharlal, s/p Sakava Saha, aged 52 years, i/o SalheDana* r.S< Sarsinifa, Mstrie-fc S Baipur (MP)« n 2-- ^ ^espondeni ^ Yerstis '-! Siaie of Madhya Pradesh. ^'. CiiIMINAI, APPEAL TOTBER SEC2IOK 374 (2) OF THE.GODE OW CSIMIML PSOCEDrrRE 1973 , \ •^. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker Criminal Appeal No. 531/1995 APPELLANT Manoharlal Versus RESPONDENT State of Madhya Pradesh Shri Aditya Tiwari counsel for the appellant. Smt. Smita Ghai P.L. forthe State. CRIMINAL APPEALUNDER SECTION 374 f1l OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE JUDGMENT (17.03.2011) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.3.1995 passed by Special Judge, Raipur in Special Case No. 169/1991 convicting the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of atrocities) Act and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that on 20.3.1991 written report Ex. P-1 was lodged by the complainant Mohanlal Satnami (PW-1) alleging that he had given certain documents pertaining to purchase of land to the accused/appellant who at the relevant time was working as Patwari, for certification and on 17.3.1991 when he had gone to him for coilecting the same, he had abused him using filthy language and also calling him Chamar, Dhamar, Halkatta. Based on this written report, FIR Ex. P-2 was registered on 23.3.1991 under sections 294 IPC and 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of atrocities) Act (for short the "Act") and after completion of investigation challan was filed by the police on 30.5.1991 but the Court below framed the charge under Section 3(1)(x)oftheAct. 3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, prosecution has examined 03 witnesses in support of its case. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charges levelled @ L <-. <2^— against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. This apart, one Pilaram (DW-1) has also been examined by the defence in support of its case. 4. After hearing the parties, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned above. 5. Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the case and that the prosecution has not collected the sufficient material to connect the appellant with the crime in question and that beingso the judgment impugned being based only on presumption cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. 6. On the other hand counsel for the respondent/State supports the judgment impugned and submits that the findings recorded by the Court bythe judgment impugned are based on material available on record and no interference therewith is warranted. 7. Mohanlal Satnami (PW-1) has stated in his evidence that he had given certain stamp papers pertaining to the purchase of land to the accused/appellant who at that time was working as Patwari, for certification of the same and when he demanded the same back, accused/appellant told him that no such documents were given to him and asked him to bring proof if any to show that he had ever given him any such document. Thereafter, the accused/appellant got annoyed and called him Chamar, Dhamar, Halkatta and had also used filthy language asking him to get away from him. According to this witness, the accused/appellant had also said to him that he was not the servant of his father and that he was free to report the matter to Chief Minister, Prime Minister or the Collector and on hearing this he got stunned. According to him, as a result of being abused by the accused/appellant, he did not get out of his house for two days and thereafter the matter was reported to the Harij'an Thana. He has stated that for collecting the documents he had gone to the house of the accused/appellant where apart from 6-7 persons of the village, Khorbahra, Girdhari and Netram were also present there. He has ,.^-TS^" /'f"". f^^ ^,^ "!%^:£ .^.s^^t^^^^.i.yAyi^^y^^i^s^^ -•3- admitted that the written report was prepared by the village Patel namely Khorbahra and he being uneducated did not know as to what was written therein and he had simply signed the same. He has stated that by caste he is Satnami and not the hide-cutter. According to him nobody in the village calls him Chamar. He has stated that after preparation of the written report Ex. P-1 the same was sent to the police station through registered post and that he had not personally gone there. Girdhari (PW-2) has stated in his evidence that on the date of incident he was standing near the house of the accused/appellant and when the complainant enquired about the stamp papers, accused/appellant had abused him by calling Chamar. He has stated that written report Ex. P-1 was signed by him two days after the incident but he being illiterate does not know as to what was written thereon. He admits that there are some omissions in his court statement if compared to his case diary statement. Sub Inspector namely Surajbhan Singh Rana (PW-3) is the investigating officer who has supported the case ofthe prosecution. Pilaram (DW- 1) has stated in his evidence that at the time of incident he was present in the house of the accused/appellantas he had also gone to him to collect certain documents and no such incident had taken place in hispresence. 8. Minute examination of the evidence available on record makes it clear that there is no evidence on record to show that at the time of incident complainant was abused by the accused/appellant with an intention to insult, intimidate or humiliate him just because he belongs to the scheduled caste community. Furthermore, the incident had taken place in the house of the accused/appellant which under no circumstances can be termed as a place within public view and the presence of all other persons in particular Girdhari (PW-2) appears to be doubtful. There is no documentary evidence to show the caste of the complainant which is a sine qua non to drive home the offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act particularly when the caste of the complainant has not been admitted by the appellant. Moreover, there is three days inordinate delay in lodging the report which has not been properly explained by I liry'A I i •<s&^-" ^ ^J ^. .^ '^^;^T^' -^- the prosecution. Thus in the light of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it would not be safe for this Court to convict the accused/appellant under this special provision and on the contrary the benefit of doubt is required to be extended in his favour. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Judgment impugned is hereby set aside. Accused/Appellant stands acquitted of the charge levelled against him. He is on bail. His bail bonds stand discharged. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge