CR.A/650/1991 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 650 of 1991 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= ISHWARBHAI RAMSINGBHAI PARMAR - Appellant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT - Opponent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR HARIN P RAVAL for Appellant(s) : 1, MS HANSA PUNANI, APP for Opponent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI Date : 08/01/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.8.1991 rendered by the Special Judge, Nadiad in Special Case No.20 of 1991. The appellant CR.A/650/1991 2/5 JUDGMENT herein was the original accused. He was charged with offence punishable under section 3(1)(10) of the Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter to be referred to as “the Atrocities Act”) as well as under section 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The learned Special Judge convicted the appellant under the said sections and sentenced to simple imprisonment for 6 months and 1 month respectively and also ordered to pay fine of Rs.100/- each. 3. As per the prosecution, the appellant had used derogatory language pertaining to the caste of the complainant and also threatened to kill him on 11.4.91 when the two had met at a road. Apparently, wife of the accused had carried some soil in a vessel from the field of the complainant. The complainant had, therefore snatched away the vessel. Sometime thereafter, the accused and the complainant met. The accused was enraged by the behaviour of the complainant of having snatched away the vessel in which his wife was carrying soil. He, therefore, used derogatory words against the complainant and threatened to kill him showing a stick which he was carrying in his hand. 4. Chimanbhai, complainant, PW-1 was examined at Ex.5. He stated that he belongs to Scheduled Caste. The incident took place on 11.4.91. At 11.30 CR.A/650/1991 3/5 JUDGMENT in the morning, he had gone to his field. When he went, he found that wife of the accused was carrying soil in a vessel from his field. He, therefore, took away the vessel from her and came to the house of his nephew. From there when he was going to his house on the way, he met the accused who was carrying a stick. He abused the complainant in the name of his community and threatened to kill him. In cross-examination, he could not state whether in the year 1935 his grand-father had converted to Christianity. He denied the suggestion that he had filed a false complaint since on account of his misbehaviour with the wife of the accused, she was likely to file a police complaint. 5. In addition to this eye-witness, the only witness examined by the prosecution was the Investigating Officer, PW-2, Lakhubhai at Ex.8. He stated before the court the manner in which the investigation was carried out. 6. On the basis of the above evidence, the learned Special Judge was pleased to convict the appellant for offence punishable under section 3(1) (10) of the Atrocities Act and under section 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code. For coming to the said conclusion, one of the factors considered by the learned Judge was that the defence failed to examine one Parmar Dhulabhai who was stated to be an eye witness to disprove that such incident had not taken CR.A/650/1991 4/5 JUDGMENT place. The learned Judge also did not take into account the inability of PW-1 to state whether his grand-father had converted into Christianity or not. 7. Having considered the evidence on record and having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties,I find that the conviction recorded by the learned Special Judge cannot be sustained. 8. At the outset, it may be noted that there is no proof except the bare word of the complainant that he is a member of the Scheduled Caste. This fact was seriously disputed by the defence. In fact, a suggestion was put to the witness that his grand- father had converted into Christianity and therefore he did not belong to the Schedule Caste community. He could not give any definite answer to this. In view of this situation, it was necessary for the prosecution to produce some material on record to establish that the complainant belonged to Scheduled Caste. This not having been done, to convict the accused for offence punishable under the Atrocities Act would not be safe. 9. Additionally, I also find that the learned Trial Judge applied incorrect parameters to record conviction of the appellant. Surely, the inability of the defence to examine a particular witness could not be a factor to hold that the charge has been proved. Except the version of the complainant, there is no other corroboration in the form of any material CR.A/650/1991 5/5 JUDGMENT evidence to bring home the charge. The evidence of the complainant also could not have been relied upon without any further corroboration particularly when the two had met on a public street and no other witnesses have been cited or examined. Considering all these aspects, I find that the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Special Judge is required to be set aside. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant is set aside. Bail bond stands cancelled. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. (Akil Kureshi, J.) (vjn)