IN THE HIGH COURT OF 3UOICATtRE: AT 3ABALPU^~ -^ -~nSf,» Cr.A.l<5''s'V /96 / -c / • . ——— ^ ^ . ^ j?am Sahu^'onof / Bhikhafi RanSahi.i', aged abput 49 years, cultivator & rfesiden-t 9f'village''G6dkhami, PolicB, Station & Tiahsil Lorinl," OistricyBilaspur. . ' ...ftPPELl-AN-T CF0000060948 -Versus- State of B.P, ...RE3PONOENT s CRIBIINAL APPEAL UNDER 3ECTIGN_ 374(2) CRIItINflL PROCEDURE CODE. '•'r r • -. / HIGH COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BIL4SPUR Sirgie Banch ; Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pritinter Diwaker Criminai Asoeai No. 1551 of 1996 Juth.et Ram Sahu Versus State of Madhya Pradesh RESPONDENT v Mr. ShashibhushoinTiwari, counsei for the appe!!ant. AAr. Vaibhav A. Qoverdhan, PL for the State/respondent. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNOER SECTION 374 (2) OF THE CODE OF PROCE&URE JUD6MENT (20.04.2011) This appeai is diracted against the impugned Judgment and order dated 9.9.1996--passed by Special Judge, BHaspu" in Special Criminal^ Ca.se No. 13/1996 corivic+ing the accused/appeiiant for the offence punishabie under Section 3(l)(v) of the Scheduied Caste ^ Scheduled Tr-ibe (Pr'e't'ention-of Atrocities) Act (for short 'the Act') and sentencing him fo undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and pay fine of Rs. 500, in defauit of payment of fine to further undergo simpie imprisonment for one month. 2. Facts of the case in brief are thort- on 8.3.1991 a written report (Ex.P-5) was lodged by complainant Hemant Kumar (PW-2) statin< therein that he is Satnam'i by co.ste and on 23.2.1991 when he was •• / livinq in .his house ajonq with his family members at viltaqe '-"'"-,"'" ••---- ".^ --• • ••- •--••-' .--...--.- -.. -...-., Gondkhamhi, Gccused/appeliait reached there and demolished his entir-e house. He has further ststed that the accused/appeilant h.ds threoteneci him by calJing Chamar. He has atso sta+ed that on the date of -incident he Todged the report' before the police Station, Lor'mi but.as h.o action was tGken by the police, written report is being » \. lodged. Based on this written report, on 27.4.1991 F.I.R. (Ex.P-5) was registered against the accused/appellant under Section 427 IPC and Section 3(l)(v) of the Act and. After completion of investigation challanwas filed on 17.6.1991 for the said offences. 3. In order to estcblish the guilt of the accused/appellant, the prosecution has examined'as many as four witnesses. Stcttement of the accused/appeliant was also recorded under -Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the charge levelied against him and p.1eaded his innocence and faf.se implication in the case. This apart, witnesses namely Sewakram (DW'-l), Padum (DW-2) and Rosh.imia! AAourya (&W- 3) have also been exomined by the defence in support of its case. 4. After hearing the parties the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused/appeliant for the offences as mentioned aboye. Hence this appeal. Heard counse! for the parties and perused the moterjal availableon record including thejudgment impugned. 6. Counse! for the appeilantsubmits that the dispute between the 'ties is of civil natu"e where on the land of the Gccused/appellGnt, complainant had made Kochcha construction and when the accused/appel!ant had asked him to vacate the la"d in question, taking advantage of.his Scri'nfflni caste, fatse report' has been lodged against him. He submits that there is inordinate de'csy in lodging the FIR as accordir.g to him incident haa' taken place on 23.2.1991 but the •written repopt was iod9ed on 8.3.1991 i-e. 15 doys after the incident cmd the dgfay has not "teen satisfactorily explained by the prQsecutlon. He submits that there is no document on record toshow that ppior to 8.S.1991 any report was lodged by the complainant. He further submits_that Balr'am Prasad (PW-1), retired Patwari has ccite§orical!y deposed in the court that the land in question was '>'..^r purchase.d by the accused/appeilant from one Toloram and in the reyenue record (Ex.P-4), name of the accused/appellont has been sh.own as owner of the land. He submits that the provision of the Special Act would not atfro.et in the present case because there is no evidence on record to sh.ow that the complainant was dispossessed by the accused/appellmt beccuse hs belor.ged to a particutar caste. 7. On th.e other hand, supporting the impugned judgment it has been argued by the State counsei that +he judgment impugned is strictty in accordance with !aw and there is no infirmity in the s<me. I have heord counsei forthe pwties and perused the materia! avaitable on record incfuding judgment impugned. 9. Complainant Hemsri't Kumar (PW-2) has stated in his evidence that on the governmerit fond, he had constructsd his house in which he was liying a!ong with his famiiy members. He ho.s stated that on the date of incident when h-e was in his shop, his wife had informed him that the accused/appeHant -is domaging his house and hurling abuses by not on!y using filthy language but also huriing the word 'chamar'. l-1e has stated th.at when he reached his house, he saw the accused/appellGnt damaging his house. He has further stated that though number of viitagers had gathered there but none of them have come forward considerinq his caste. He hos further s+ated that he had todged th^report on the sojfle day but police officers have not ./ made (ti/enquiry and, therefore, a written reporl' (Ex.P-5) was made. He ha? furthsr stat^- that on account of pressure of the .accused/qppellwt, even he was required to yacate his shop. There appears to -be materiat omissjons and contradictions in the court statement of-.th®complaincsnt from that of his case. diary statement recordsd under SectTon 161 of the Code of Crimina! Procedure and this.ha.scome in paragraphs 9,10,11 and 12 of his cross-examination. \ White (leposing in the court he has not only improved but has also exag3eratecl ln-'s version. He has further stated that he could not tel the reason. as to why his house wos demolished by the accuse.d/appellcff't nor he couid tsll <my reason as to why the accused/appe!!a"t co.!!ed him " chamar sale". AAus. Aghaniya Bai (PW-3) - wife of the complainant has stated in her evidence that on the date 'of incident appeltant came to her house and starred demolishing.the some and h.e was hurling abuses. There appears to be severa! contradictions and omissions in her court statement from that of her statement recorded under Section 161 of th.e Code of Criminal Procedure. Salram Prasad (PW-1) i$ the Retired patwari who had prepared the spot mop Ex.P-1. He has catsgoricaily stated that the complainant had made constructiori over the !and owned by the accused/appellant and the said land was purchased.Jsy the accused/appeltant from one Tolaram and in atl the revenue records, namie of the accused/appellant is pecorded as owner of the Imd. ASI R.L Singh (PW-4) is the Investigating Officer who has supported the case of th.e prosecution. 10. From the record, it appears that on the land of the accused/appelicnt, some construction appears to have been raised by the complainant and there was some dispute between the parties. :videncei. o)So reflects that the proceedin9s under Sections 107 ond 151 of the Code of Crim.iQdl Procedure were initiated ago.inst the complainant. Patwari Bak'am Prasad (PW-1) has stated that the land is owned by the accused/appellflLnt and in a!l the revenue records his name has been recorded as owner. According to the Patwari, .cpmpiaihant h.ad made- some construction over the land of the dccuse.d/Qppp!!o"t. Thus, possibility of ciyi! nature dispute between '!i«l;Et S.-;.j:|! the parties cannot be ruled out. More so, there is no document on record to show that on 23.2.1991 any report wos lodged by the complainant and on the basis of documents and the evidence, it appears that for the first time the written report- was lodged on 8.3.1991 vide Ex.P-5. Furthermore, this deloy of 15 days in lodging the F.I.R. has not been properly explained by the complainant as required under the law. From the statement of the complainant and his wife, it is apparent thot while deposing in the court, they have not only improved but haye also exaggerated their version. That apcxrt, incident is said to have taken place in the year 1991 i.e. about 20 years back and taking cumulative effect of the evidence of the witnesses, it will not be safe for this Court to uphold the conviction of the accused/appel!ant under Sectlon 3 (1) (x) of the Act. 11. In the result, the appeal is aliowed. Impugned judgment dated 9.9.1996 cortvicting and sentencing the accused/appellant is set aside. He is acquitted of the charges leyelled against him. As the appellant is on bait, his bail bonds stand discharqed. -- ''"~~~"""~"~'~-'""~"'"' SdA. DhirendraMishra Judge '. / •^••stRWi^. ^s^s^