[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.419 OF 2005 1. Munna Bandu Kurane ] Age 51 years, ] Occ: Municipal Corporator ] & Social Worker ] Resident of 66, ] North Shivaji Nagar, ] Sangli 416 416 ] ] 2. Mrs.Rakhmabai Bhimrao ] Parekar, Age 60 years, ] Occ: Housewife, ] Resident of Opp.Kalpataru ] Mangal Kaeryalaya ] Shivaji Nagar, Sangli ] 416 416 ] (Both at present on bail) ]..Appellants Vs. 1. The State of Maharashtra ] 2. Sarojini Pravin Devarshi ] Age 55 years, Occ: Service ] 1130/B, North Shivaji Nagar] Kalpataru Mangal Karyalaya ] Sangli. ]..Respondents .... Mr.Nitin Pradhan with Ms.Shubhada Khot Advocate for Appellants Mr.V.B.Konde-Deshmukh APP for State .... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : JUNE 02, 2008 DATE : JUNE 02, 2008 DATE : JUNE 02, 2008 ORAL JUDGMENT: ORAL JUDGMENT: ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. The appellants-original accused nos.1 and 2 have impugned the judgment and order dated 4.4.2005 [-2-] passed by the learned IInd ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli in Sessions Case No. 7 of 2000. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant nos. 1 and 2 for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (Hereinafter referred to as the SC ST Act). Appellant No.1 was also convicted for the offence under Section 506 of IPC. For the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC ST Act, the appellant no.1 was sentenced to RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- i/d RI for three months. For the offence under Section 506 of IPC, the appellant no.1 was sentenced to RI for one year and fine of Rs.10,000/- i/d RI for two months. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. For the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC ST Act, appellant no.2-Rukhmini Bhimrao Parekar was sentenced to RI for two years and fine of Rs.500/- i/d RI for three months. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated is as under: . There was a dispute between the complainant and [-3-] one Vasant Sutar in respect of some construction. The accused persons were siding Vasant Sutar. It is the case of the complainant that on 3.8.2000 at about 4 p.m. the appellant no.1 abused her in respect of her caste. Immediately thereafter appellant no.2 also abused the complainant by referring to her caste. It is the prosecution case that the complainant belongs to "Dhor" community which is a Scheduled Caste and the appellants do not belong to any scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. On the next day at about 22.15 the complainant lodged her FIR at Vishrambaug Police Station, Sangli. Thereafter, investigation commenced. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed. 3. Charge came to be framed against the both accused under Sections 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and against accused no.1 under Section 506 of IPC. Both of them pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Their defence is of total denial and false implication. After going through the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced [-4-] the appellants as stated in paragraph 1 above. Hence, this appeal. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned APP for the State. I have also perused the impugned judgment and order as well as the evidence in the present case. After carefully considering the matter, I am of the opinion that this appeal deserves to be allowed. 5. In the present case there is inordinate delay in lodging the complaint. No plausible or reasonable explanation has been furnished by the prosecution for the delay in lodging the complaint. The very fact of unexplained delay in lodging the complaint raises grave doubt in the mind about the veracity of the prosecution case. 6. As regards the merit of the matter, PW 1 Sarojini has stated in her evidence that she belongs to "Dhor" community which is a scheduled caste and both the appellants abused her by referring to her caste. It is pertinent to note that in her evidence, complainant has not stated the caste of the appellants anywhere nor does she [-5-] state that they did not belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. In her complaint Exhibit-17 also, the complainant has not stated caste of any of the accused persons. In fact, in the complaint the complainant has not even stated her own caste or that she belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Mr.Pradhan, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that if the caste of the complainant is not disclosed in the FIR, the police authorities could not be said to have any material to invoke the powers under Chapter XII of the Cr.P.C. and to commence the investigation considering the complaint to be a cognizable complaint. He placed reliance on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court (V.K.Barde and A.P.Deshpande, JJ.) in the case of Anant Vasantlal Anant Vasantlal Anant Vasantlal Sambre V. State of Maharashtra, Sambre V. State of Maharashtra, Sambre V. State of Maharashtra, in Cri.W.P.No.49 of 2001, in which it was held that if the First Information Report does not contain an averment that the accused does not belong to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, the offence under Section 3 of the Atrocities Act, cannot be registered." 7. Section 3(1)(x) of the said Act provides that whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or [-6-] a Scheduled Tribe, intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled 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 and with fine. A Division Bench of this Court (R.M.S.Khandeparkar and Smt.V.K.Tahilramani, JJ.) in the case of Subhadra Sushil Anand and others Vs. Subhadra Sushil Anand and others Vs. Subhadra Sushil Anand and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and another State of Maharashtra and another State of Maharashtra and another in Criminal Writ Petition No.1019 of 2007 decided on 13.9.2007, has held that "plain reading of the provisions of law comprised under Section 3(1)(x) of the said Act therefore would reveal that in order to enable the police to take cognizance of the offence committed under the said provisions of law, it would be necessary for the complainant to disclose that the person who is accused of commission of offence under the said Act is not a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and that he intentionally insults or intimidates with intend or humiliate the complainant or any other person who is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and lastly that such incident should occur in public view. In other words, the complaint has not only to reveal [-7-] the caste of the person who is sought to be insulted or intimidated or humiliated but he should also disclose that such person belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and simultaneously the complaint should also reveal that the person who is accused of commission of such offence does not belong either to a Scheduled caste or to a Scheduled Tribe. It is only when the accusation with an intention to insult or intimidate or to humiliate has been made by a person not belonging either to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and addressed to the person belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, and such incident occurs in public view, only in that case, he could be said to have committed an offence under section 3(1)(x) of the said Act and not otherwise. Obviously, therefore, if the complaint does not disclose that the accused person does not belong to a caste other than Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, it would not disclose an offence in terms of the said section, sufficient to take cognizance thereof by the police." 8. In the present case, the complaint is totally [-8-] silent about the caste of the complainant as well as that of the accused persons. So also in her evidence complainant has not stated the caste of the accused persons. As regards her own caste, she has stated that she belongs to Dhor community, however, in her cross-examination, it has come on record that she and her parents belong to Lingayat community. As stated earlier the caste of the accused persons has not been brought on record by the prosecution. In the absence of essential facts in the evidence of the witnesses especially the complainant, it cannot be said that any case is made out under the SC ST Act. 9. As far as the offence under Section 506 of IPC is concerned, there is no reliable or cogent material on record regarding the same. As observed earlier the unexplained delay in lodging the complaint itself throws a grave cloud of doubt on the prosecution case. In view of the above, the conviction of both the appellants cannot be sustained. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 4.4.2005 passed by the [-9-] learned IInd Ad-hoc Addl. Sessions Judge, Sangli in Sessions Case No. 7 of 2000 is set aside. The appellant no.1 is acquitted of the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and of the offence under Section 506 of IPC. The appellant no.2-Rukhmini Bhimrao Parekar is acquitted of the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Both the appellants shall be released forthwith if not required in any case. Fine amount if any, paid by the appellants shall be refunded to them. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]