.{?. 11^ THEr l^^ {300RT OF JUDICftftSRE JAT JABALPUR CRIMINA^ <a^&^L N0. ^ S 7 OF 28SS Appellants '..^ > ^" ^ c- .^' VL^ ^ ^' ^ ^ ^-^ ^ r^ Respondent ^Sog'i1 ^^ch (rriniiri3i) 1. ^RamBshar p son of Jagannath Kumhar ;i aged about 49 years- || 2» ^Dayalalq son of Jaga'nnatih Kumhars aged about &Q years ^ <:SA\takrarn., BDH of Nurto Kufnhar<g aged ^bout 50-years g (Al1 residents of•vi1lage-Pandaripandi.t P»Sn Bagbahara^ Distt^ MahaBamund} Versus - . ' , . ., Sta-i-e of M.P« ;, througi-i S.H.O., -P.S\. ;eagbahar4 Disfctn Naha^amund« \ CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF CRIMJNAL^PROCEDURE CODE A6AINST THE JUD6MENT AND SENTENCE'DATED 16-3-20@S PASSED BY . 3PEC i.^.epf SHRI S.C. BAJPAI. 3PECIAL JUDGE (S.C.& S.^T. (PREVENTION OF ATROdTIES)ACT. 1989). RAIPUR SN SPECIAL CASE N0. 50/?<?. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Appeal No. 957 of 2000 APPELLANTS RESPONDENT VERSUS Rameshwar and others State of Madhya Pradesh Shri Satyendra Sahu counsel for the appellant. Smt. Smita Ghai PL for the respondent/State. CRIMINAL APPEALUNDERSECTION374 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. JUDGMENT (23.02.2011) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.3.2000 passed by Special Judge Raipur in Special Case No. 50/1999 convicting the accused/appellant under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (prevention of atrocities) Act (for short the "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 for one month. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 28.3.1999 FIR (Ex. P-1) was lodged by the complainant namely Taturam (PW-1) to the effect that on 27.3.1999 at about 8 p.m. when some meeting of Gada community attended by 30-35 people was going on in Gandhi Chabootara, all of a sudden someone threw a stone hitting his arm and when all of them stood up on a mound, they saw all the accused/appellants standing in the enclosure of one Bhupat Kumhar holding stones in their hands. Thereafter, when enquiry was made as to why they were pelting stones, accused/appellants started threatening and hurling abuses at them saying that "sa/e Gadwa tumhen dekh lenge". It is alleged that the accused/appellants had abused the village Kotwar namely Pyarelal alias Babulal (PW-3) also. On the basis ofthis FIR, offences under Sections 294, 336 and 506 IPC and 3 (1) (x) of theAct were registered against them. After completion of investigation, challan was filed by the police on ^-.. 29.4.1999. However, the Court below framed the charges against the accused/appellants undersections 323 and 294 IPC and 3 (1) (x)oftheAct. 3. So as to hold the accused/appellants guilty, iDrosecution has examined 08 witnesses in support of its case. Statements of the accused/appellants were also recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in whichthey denied the charges levelled against them and pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case. 4. After hearing the parties the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants herein as mentioned above. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including thejudgment impugned. 6. Counsel for the accused/appellants submits that some incident might have taken place between the complainant party and the accused/appellants but the complainant has exaggerated his version just to make the offence graver and implicate the accused/appellants in a false case bringing home the provisions of the Special Act against them. He submits that the complainant is Gada by caste whereas the accused/appellants' caste is Kumhar which comes in the category of OBC and they had no intention to insult or humiliate the complainant in the name of his caste. According to him, there is no legally admissible evidence on record in respect of the caste of the complainant and simply on the basis of caste certificate issued by the Sarpanch the accused/appellants cannot be convicted under the provisions of Special Act. He submits that the appellants and the complainant party have amicably settled the dispute out side the Court as a result of which they have been acquitted of the charges under sections 294 and323 IPC but as the offence under section 3 (1) (x) of the Act is not compoundable in nature, they have been convicted for the same. 7. On the other hand counsel for the respondenVState supports the judgment impugned and submits that caste certificate Ex. P-4 \^ .-• €) -3- has been issued by the Sarpanch ofthe village and that there is no challenge toits authenticity and in these circumstances the findings recorded by the Court below are fullyjustified. 8. Taturam (PW-1) has stated in his evidence that on the date of incident when some meeting of Gada community attended by 30-35 people was going on in Gandhi Chabootara, all of a sudden someone threw a stone hitting his arm and when all of them stood up on a mound, they saw all the accused/appellants standing in the ericlosure of one Bhupat Kumhar holding stones in their hands. Thereafter, on being asked as to why they were pelting stones, accused/appellants started threatening and hurling abuses at them saying that "Gadwa sale ho, neechjati ke ho karke badi badi baaten karto ho, tum log ko dekhenge, sale madarchod gadwa log". In cross examination this witness has stated that the incident had taken place in the dark but it was not so dark. From paragraphs 5 and 6 of his evidence it appears that earlier also there was some dispute between the two groups. He admits that for last one and a half year thereto in the village there are two groups; complainant party belongs to one group whereas the accused/appellants to the other. He further admits that the incident had taken place in a dense locality and though number of persons are residing there, they were not apprised of the incident. Kapoor Chand (PW-2), Pyarelal alias Babulal (PW-3), Shankar (PW-4), Lakhan (PW-5) and Aaskaran (PW-6) have alsomade the similar statement as has been made by the complainant herein. Dr. C.S. Mishra (PW-7) is the witness who had medically examined the complainant (PW-1). Smt. Hemin Bai (PW-8) is the Sarpanch who had issued an undated caste certificate in favour of the complainant. 9. Having gone through the material available on record, this Court could not lay hands on the statement of any of the witnesses except Aaskaran (PW-6), on the basis of which it can be said that complainant herein or any member of the Gada community was abused by the accused/appellants, with an intention to insult, intimidate or humiliate just for the reason that they belong to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe community. More so, almost all 9§pnf ji35|pMia ja^upuj -/PS 'peBjeqosip pue^s spuoq |ieq ji9L|i 'iieq uo Ape9J|e eje Aeqi sy 'LUQ^ isuieBe p9||aA9| 96jeqo eqi p peninboe OJB siueiiedde/pesnoov "epise }QS Aqejeq si peu6ndLU! lueiuBpnr 'p9MO||e si leedde Q{\} 'AiBuipjooov "01. •M0|aq ynoo e^ Aq pepjooej uoipiAuoo JIQLJI p|oqdn 01 unoo si^ jo^ eyes eq }ou p|noM 11 'ijnoo eqi epjsino aindsip QLJI p9|U9S AiqeoiLue QAeq Ae^ ieqi pue Atiunujiuoo equi p8|np9LjOs jo eiseo peinpeqos 0} 6uo|eq AOLII 9sneoeq isnf Lusqi oieiiiuunq jo eiepjiUHU! 'iinsui 0} A^ied lueuieidtuoo eq^pesnqe peq Aeqi ieqi siueiiedde/pesnooe QL|I isuieBe eouepiAe euiqouip pue lueBoo Aue p eouosqe 8L|i ui 'snqi -ino p8|m eq IOUUBO siueiiQdde/pesnooe eqi p uo^eoiidLU! es|ej p Aijiiqissod euues Q^ MGIA ui Buidee^ snqi pue lue^ U99Mi9q AisnoiAojd Q^ndsip QLUOS peisixe ojQqi ieqi pue jeqio eqi 0} siue||9dde/p9snooe 9i4i pue dnojB euo 0} 6uo|9q Auedlueuieidiuoo :9Be||!A 9L|i uj sdnojBoMi eje ejeqi ieqi peyiLupe GABLI sesseuiiM eqi "i