!^s^s^,, ffi ^' Snqle Ba IN THE HIG:rCOrTRT OF J'UDICATUEE. KF JASSfPUR C5»A. KO. ^ ^' \ OF 1: APPBLIAFTT ^l rlmina' CF0000062053 OAJADHAR LA1. SJA-U age 25 years s/o Rati'Ram Sahu r/o vill-Kotgaon P*S< .zsb'hanpur, distt. Rsipur«_ '^;'1 .-. •s-"i- ' 'w- ./ versus Special ' State of M.p. throuch/Pollce Station Raipur. -/ CRIMINAL APPEAL u/s 374.CODE OS- CRIMINAL PROCKDUK! •^-iisJ-l -^.:—-— Case No- Special Sessj.ons Trj.al N0. 35 /98 •"-'""""'^ Lv ~:(".i JrtAg.S.^"5'? ...^^f---: u/s te 294,505 IPC r/w 3(1) (10) S.C. and S. T». (Prevention of AtrocJ.t Act) Special Polj-cs sta-fcior Ralpiir, . Cr.No 4/93. C013VIC'TION u/s - 3(1.)(10-5 S.C. and S.T. ( Preventlon of Atrocities)Act. Sentence :- Six racnths R. K .rr--f-^& „ ^.e-^ cir\r\_^^_ ^p^ HIGH COURTOF CMHATTISGARHATBILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) CriminalAppeal No. 851 of 1999. APPELLANT RESPONDENT VERSUS Gajadhar Lal Sahu. State of Madhya Pradesh. Post forpronouncement ofjudgment on 22-2-2010 Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge ^p^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT_B1LASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) CriminalAppeal No. 851 of 1999. APPELLANT RESPONDENT VERSUS Gajadhar Lal Sahu. State ofMadhya Pradesh Shri Atul Pandey eounsel for appellant. Shri Rajendra Tripathi PL for respondent/State. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDERSECTION374 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. JUDGMENT (^2-.02.2010) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 15.3.1999 passed by Special Judge, Raipur, in Special Sessions Trial No. 35/1998 convicting the accused/appellanl for the offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (x) ofthe Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and pay fine of Rs. 500, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for10days. 2. Case ofthe prosecution in briefis that on 25.1.1998 awritten report (Ex. P-1) was lodged by one M.L. Ramteke (PW-1) stating therein that at the relevant time he was working as Deputy Director in Panchayat and Social Welfare Department, Raipur where the accused/appellant was posted as watchman. On the basis of said written report FIR (Ex.P-3) was registered on 5.3.1998. It isalleged that on 25.1.1998 the accused/appellant did not report on duty for preparatioh of republic day celebration on the next day. It is alleged that at about 10 p.m. the accused/appellant came to the hbuseof .the complajnant in a drunken condition and when he madecertain :eBquiry from hiro, he started abusing him saying th^t he belonged t6 11 iisail t^tiS'li! chamar caste. It is also alleged that the accused/appellant intimidated the complainant by holding his collar. 3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, prosecution has examined 06 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 against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. 4. After hearing the parties the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused / appellant for the offences as mentioned above. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material availabte on record inctuding thejudgment impugned. 6. Counsel for the accused/appellant submits that the prosecution has failed to prove the fact that the complainant belonged to scheduled caste category as no caste certificate etc. has been filed by the prosecution in that regard and in the absence of any such document the appellant cannot be convicted under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. He submits that as the incident had taken place in the house of the complainant and not in public view, the accused/appetlant cannot be convicted under that special provision. He submits that as the appellant, at the relevant time, was the watehman did not succumb to the pressure exerted by the complainant who happened to be his superior, he has been roped in afalsecase. 7. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent/State supports the impugned judgment and submits that the same being strictly in accordance with law does not call for any interference in this appeal. He submits that once the statement has been made by the complainant in the Court that he is a member of scheduled caste category, prosecution is not required to produce any caste tjl^ certificate. He further submits that the incident had taken place within the public view and therefore the judgment impugned convicting and sentencing the accused/appellant is just and proper. 8. M.L. Ramteke (PW-1) has stated in his evidence that on 25.1.1998 in the evening when he returned from his official tour, he found the accused/appellant absent from his duty. This witness has stated that he along with his other staff member waited for the accused/appellant till 9 p.m. and when he did not turn up, a separate lock was put by the driver in the pffice and then he as well as the other official went to their respective houses. According to this witness, at about 10 p.m. the accused/appellant came to him in a drunken condition and demanded the key of the office and when he refused to give the same, he got excited and said that the complainant belonged to chamar community and if'key was not handed over to him, he would get him killed with the help of goons. He has stated that the accused/appellant had also used filthy language against him. He has further stated that the incident was witnessed by his wife and son. In the cross examination this witness has admitted that though the report was typed on 25.1.1998 itself in the office of joint director but the same was filed before the concerned police station on 27.1.1998. He has stated that by caste he is maharand when persons belonging to his caste are abused or insulted then word chamar is used. Ashish (PW-2), the son of the complainant has supported the statement of his father (PW-1). In paragraph 2 of his cross examination he has stated that the incident had taken place inside the house and that he is not chamar by caste. This witness has admitted that his father did not lodge the report promptly and it was lodged on the second day. According to him the incident was not disclosed to his neighbours. He has also stated that the abusive language used by the accused/appellant against his father is used in common parlance. Thansingh (PW-3) has not made any specific allegation against the accused/appellant except that complainant had informed him on 27.1.1998 that aecused had caught hold of his collar. Devraj Naidu (PW-5) has <:iiigiE a i.@; !' -Q-- stated in his evidence that he was informed by the complainant that accused/appellant had abused him by calling chamar. The question which arises for consideration in this case is whether prima fade an offence has been committed under section 3 1 (x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Section 3(1)(x)states: "3. Punishment for offences of atrocities - (1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,- (X) 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." 9. Thus it is an admitted position that no caste certificate which or any other related document to this effeet is a s/ne qua non for holding the accused guilty under this special provision has been produced by the prosecution to the^effect that he belongs to the scheduled caste community. The only piece of evidence inthis case is his Court statement where in paragraph 12 of the same he has stated that his caste is mahar and when someone insults the persons belonging to his caste, word chamar is used in the form of abuse. Secondly, it is not disputed that the incident has not taken place within public view as according to the statement of Ashish (PW-2) it had taken place inside the house and therefore one of the basic ingredients for holding the accused guilty under this special provision is also missing.. Additionally, there are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses painting a not-so-dear picture in the judicial mind to come to agreement with the findings recorded by the Court below in the judgment impugned. 10. To condude, the appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment dated 15.3.1999 is hereby set aside. Appellant is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. Since appellant is already on bail, his bail bonds stand discharged. Sd/- pritinker aiwaker