A-FR. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR (Single Bench: Hon'tole Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, Jl Criminal ApDeal No. 1236 of 1993 Sadhu Sharan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (Now State of Chhattisgarh) JUDGMENT Post for Judgment : /^-/09/201 O Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge ^ / IsK;: L, i:i(r. .iL.i^i ,,i»-m'TlSS, IWL_ VS-cftb HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR (Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha. J) APPELLANT RESPONDENT Criminal ApReal No. 1236 of 1993 Sadhu Sharan, S/o Ram Awtar.aged about 43 years, R/o Ranai, Police Station Patna, District Ambikapur, M.P. (Now State of Chhattisgarh) Versus State of Madhya Pradesh (Now State of Chhattisgarh) Through Police Station, Patna, District Ambikapur, M.P. (Now State of Ghhattisgarh) (ADpeal under Section 374 (2) of The Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973) Appearance: Ms. Sharmila Singhai.Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Rajendra Tripathr, Panel Lawyerforthe State. JUDGWIENT C4-.09.2010) Sunil KumarSinha, J. (1) The two accused persons, namelySadhu Sharan (appellant) and his son Shiv Charan, were prosecuted u/s 3(1) (x) of TheSeheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 v'. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Special Act') in the Court of Special Judge, Ambikapur, District Sarguja vide SpecialCriminal Case No. 51/91. Bythe - 'impugned Jud^ment dated 8 of December, 1993, the leamed Special Judge while acquitting 'co-accused- Shiv Charan, convicted gccused/appellant- Sadhu Sharan for the offence punishableu/s 3 (1)(x) of the Special Act andsentenced to undergo S.l. for six months and to \ pay fine of F?s.300/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.l. - :>fQFQhe month.; ,^^" . . • : • • . ENB piirt ' "^, I Criminal Apoeal No. 1236 of 1993 (2) The facts, briefly stated, are as under:- Complainant- Ramjatan Kurre belongs to Rohidas (scheduled caste) community. He was working as a teacher in pnrnary school, Ranai. Accused persons belong to general community, Complainant lodged a First Information Report(Ex.- P/1)on 27.4.91 thaton'26.4.91, when he returned from the school, his son Jagjeevan Ram (PW-3) told him that his oneox was detained by appellant- Sadhu Sharan in his house, which they have brought back. He saw that the ox was having some injuries. Thereafter he, along with Sukhan Ram, Indrajeet, Kapildas, Rajendra Kumar, Ramdas and hisson Jagjeevan Ram.went to ask SadhuSharan. They met with Sadhu Sharan and his sonShiv Charan (accused persons).When they asked as to why his ox was beaten, Sadhu Sharan said ".....'EFTR ^r t?f cfif crfET cfr? r^f ^FR ^ clT^ ^q cTtrr '.^ ^ERtTt' ^Tt WipR f^Fft ^ dp\Kw cf^...." On the said information, anoffence u/s 3 of the Special Act was registered and aftercompletion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed u/s 3(1) (x)ofthe Special Act. (3) Ms. Sharmila Singhai, learned counset appearing on behalfofthe appellant, raised two fold argyments. She argued that the entire investigation was carried out by an officer of the rank of Sub-lnspector who was not competentin termsofRule 7 ofThe Scheduled Castes and V-'. .' •• • . • •• the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention bf Atrocities) Rules, 1995, therefore, thewhple investigation was illegal and invalid and the entire proceedings of the trial vitjates. She also argued that as per evidence of Ramdas (PW- • 2), the above incident of using'such language took plaee in the house of the Accused persons.whereas in the F.I.R. the place of occurrence is not mentioned arid in the evjdence ofthe complainant, he deposed that the occurrence tpokprace near a na/a, therefore, there is discrepancy in Tegard to fhe place of occurrence and the story becomes doubtful. <-"" .<>'; ^i^^:^^?ili^^i <BS@SS wn e w a: >i i >I!IB81 u Criminal Aopeal No. 1236 of 1993 (4) On the other hand, Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the State, opposedthese arguments and supported the judgment passed by the Special Court. (5) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the special case. (6) The first argument relating to applicability of Rule 7 of the Rules 1995is totally misconceived. In the present case, the incident took place on 26.4.91, whereas the Rules of 1995 came into force, later on, in the year 1995. Therefore, there is no question of application ofthese Rules in the investigation which was done in the year 1991. (7) So far as discrepancy relating to place of occurrence is concerned, according to F.1.R. (Ex.-P/1) lodged by complainant- Ramjatan Kurre (PW-1) the exactplace ofoccurrence is not mentioned in the F.I.R. He only mentioned thatwhen they were going to ask to the accused persons, they met themand the incident took place. In his courtevidence Ramjatan Kurre deposed that whten he returned from the school at about 3.00 p.m., he went in search of his ox. Jagjeevan Ram, Sukhan Ram, Ramdas, Indrajeet, Kapildas and Rajendra Kumar also went in search of the-ox. When these persons were returningwith the ox, he met them and saw injury on ttie neck of the ox. Surprisingly, he then deposed that the - / / ! " ; ' ^ accysed persons were on the other side of the nala alongwith the ox. It is '-^ at this pl.ace, he asked the accused persons as to why they have detained theox,on which.accused Sadhu Sharan used the above words. (8) Ramdas (PW-2) deposed thaton 26.4.91, he wassearching theox '"^fRamjatan Kurre alohg withSukhan Ram, Rajendra, Kapildas, Indrajeet -.--;.- , „ .-••y CriminalATOealNo.1236 of 1993 and Jagjeevan Ram. They went to the house of Sadhu Sharan. They met the wife of Sadhu Sharan. She told them that one ox has been detained in their house. She untied the ox from her house. They identifjed the ox to be that of complainant and saw that therewas injury on the neck of the ox. Therafter, Sadhu Shara'n and his son (accused person) came out from the house and Sadhu Sharan used the above words. According to the verson of PW-2, complainant Ramjatan was not present with them. In Para-5 of his cross-examination, he admitted that Ramjatan met them when they reached to a distance of about 2 furlongs from the house of the accused persons. In appreciation of the evidence of these witnesses, we find that when they were comingalongwith the ox, after 5-10 minutes, complainant Ramjatan met them in the way ata distance of 2 furlongs from the house of the'accused persons. Therefore, it is clear that the words allegedly used by the appellant was not used in presence of the complainant and in suchsituation it cannot be said that the said words were used by the appellant to intentionally-insult the complainant. Ifwe reconcile the evidence of these two witnesses, there is differenceabout the place of occurrence. (9) Jagjeevan Ram (PW-3 - s6n of the complainant) has givenyet an another version. He deposed that while searching the ox, they reached to the house of Sadhli Sharan. Wife of Sadhu Sharan told them that an ox s / has»been detained in her house. She untied the ox. They identified their ox When they were returning with their ox and they traveled to some distance, they saw injury on the neck of the ox. They stopped there and calledSadhu Sharanand asked him about the injury.It is at this place, Sadhu Sharan ysed fhe above words against them. In the above facts '*,, "Ilt. Criminal Acoeal No. 1236 of 1993 and circumstances of the case, we find that there is much discrepancy relating to the place of occurrence, where the appellant allegedly used those words against the complainant. Ramdas (PW-2) is an independent withess. If wetake his version to be correct, it would appear that the alleged words were not used by the appellant in ~presence of the complainant. Therefore, the story relating to use of insulting words against eomplainant RamjatanKurre becomes doubtful. (10) Section 3 (1) (x) of the Special Act speaks about intentional insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate the member of a scheduled caste or scheduled tribe in anyplace within public view. In the present case, the prosecution has not establishedthat the appellant intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to humiliate Ramjatan, as according to the version of PW-2, the presence of Ramjatan at the place when the above words were used appears to be doubtful. It appears that Ramjatan met them later on in the way to their house at a distance of 2 furlongs from the house of the accused persons. V. • ' ' • . (11) In the result, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentences awarded to the appellant u/s 3 (1,) (x) of the Special Act areset-aside. The_appellant is acquitted of thecharges framed u/s 3 (1) (x) of the Special Act. It is stated thatthe appellantis on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and surety stands discharged. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge :v^tti