v..,\ \ CF0000061 834 K D/ . ' 1 \ m)! Q “h “ A ” f s?i T ‘ J‘! THC [{TGH CUJ f OF JUDI [UUdiZ A1 3%QLRJR,“ ’3 C1:a:ig-xmmuj;a395ALwNc;*8 ¥é w 0x l9C7 APPELL AN T 5mg e Bench (Crlmmal) aocd abouL 47 war ‘ ‘11 aurani g/o Jagnnath1 .JhlmAr, r931dent 0f Paraqaau, 13w. Armh mswlu Ralpur( KP) V E__[i S U iu “Sua‘ce of 2‘ adhVa Pradesh Ihlowa Ezwn. mxw Spawal .Sumlpur Blsgmc’c Ramur (”P‘ PPLAL UNJLbi §¢C110N $74 OF CUJL OE CnUJhAL Rk-QKR .,.,. m3O: hum CD Jf‘ 19 13 V v E ..... ;, E . { A 1 WM,» HEGH COURT OF CHHATTISéARH K? BELAS?U§ :5imgig 32m}: : Han‘bie Aw. Jus‘fice Préé‘éaker Diwaker Crim§m§ Appaaé No. 37$ of 1%? AWELLANT Miiaumm, s/o Jagnm‘rhi Dhimar @ Varsus RESPONDENT 5mm af mw hya Pmdesh Shri Pahkaj Agrawai ceunsel for Hie appeiiam. Shri 'Vivek Shar'ma, PL “for ‘Hae S'mfe. CRIMINAL APPEAL. UND£R $ECTIGN 3W: £2} QF TH§ £$DE G5”: CRIMINAL PRGCEDURE EQD$§J§ENT (mQazam This appecd is d%rec‘red ggcxins? fhe impugned judgmem‘ and order timed 31.3.i§?§? passed by Sapecm] Judge, Raipw in Specia! Cri‘mimi Case M3. 321/1996 camvici’img *rhe: accused/appe§5amf under $ec1‘ian 3 (1) (x) (3f ?he $checiuéed Cas‘fe (Si 5chedu§ed Tribe (Prevemim 0f £Tmci?ies) Ac? and {ien’rancing him m unda‘rga r§gama3 imgriwnmew 3‘03“ gix mam‘hs wh‘h fine of R$,5QG/-, in defaua‘? I 0r f paymem of fine #6 ‘furfher undergo simpie imgrigemmen? fair ‘a‘hr’ee mamhs. 2. Case 9f ‘s‘he proseau‘fiou, in br%e‘f, is"?haf ‘i‘he accused/appeiian? had stud abam‘ Wm acres cfhis iard fa $he campbinan? for a considera‘rian 0% Q5.1,75,GGD/i— Guf 0f which Qs,?8,5QO/— were paid by fhe compiaimr‘? and regisfrm‘io‘n cf The icmd was execua‘ed. Wham the camsplc‘irarf appHed for mu‘m‘ricn, on 27.12.1997 RS. Scnpipre, Nayub Tahsildar (PW—2) came 1o viiage Paragaor far irspecfian of 'fhe kind ané recording the smiemenf. i? is eiiegeé f‘ncn when The sfafemem‘ 0f ‘i’he campiainani was being reccrded, eccused/appelian‘? had made ‘ihe u‘rierence inc}? “w m $3; \ W 2?; %". Or} hearing This, The wmplaimnf became ‘hanse. On 28.12.1995 a mm” (EXP-1) was writ‘fen by The campiainam‘ f0 ‘rhg Collechr‘ Rai‘gur‘ geeking aca‘ion agains‘f The accused/appellanT. Copy of This ieTTer was also forwarded To' fhe Minis‘rer‘, Superimenden‘r of Paiice, Cemmissiener, 5H0. and Sarpanch. This ie‘Her' apmars To have been forwarded by ‘i'he SP. office f0 fhe concerned p0§§ce sM‘fion aiqd affer’ preiiminary enquiry affence was regisfered Lmdew Sec‘Hon 3 (1) (x) of The Scheduied Casi'e & Scheduled‘Tribe (Wevenfion of Atroci'ries) Act Affer campie’rmg £nves‘riga‘Hon, chgilan was fiied on 22.5.1996 under Secfion 3 (1) (x) of fhe Scheduled Casfe & Schedukd Tribe (Prevenfion of Afrocif§es) ACT ogainsf #he accused/appeHam. 3. So as 3‘0 hcéd 1%: accused/appéilanT guiiw, prasecuficn has examined G3 wHnesses in supper“? of i'rs case. Smfemenf 0f fhe accused/appeiiam was also recorded unset" Sec'Hon 313 of The Code of Criminai Procedure in which he denied fhe charges ieveiied dgainsf him and pieaded his innocence and foise impiiccn‘ion in fhe coee. 4. Counsei for The appeiicmf submifs The? The accused/appeiianT has been T'aiseiy impiicai'ed JusT because The compiainanT was noT inTeresTed To pay The remaining amounT of Rs. 96,500/— againsT The iand purchased by his wife. He submiTs ThaT The compiainanT had noT even iodged The reporT in The concerned poiiee sTaTion and direcTiy approached The GoiiecTor' and various higher auThoriTies jusT because he was sei’f proclaimed PresidenT of, Ail India SamTa Sainik Dal, Paragaon, Arang, Raipur. He submiTs ThaT when The words "5a/e chaman' has noT been used wiTh an inTenTion To humiliaTe The K'w g. em“ complainant “Hie appeiéam cannof be cmvicfed under Secfion 3(1)(><) of The Scheduied Cage & Scheduied Tribe (W‘even‘rio'n cf Afroch‘ies) ACT. He furé'her' submifs fhaf even Nayab TahsHdar RS. 5anpipre (PW-2) has :10? fuHy suppom‘ed The case of *rhe prosecu?ion. 5. On The ofher' hamd, if has hem argued by The sfafe caunsel Thcd' convic’?ion 0‘?” "§'he accused/appeHan‘r is fuHy jus’rified and ‘Hne same §s in accwdance wh‘h iaw. He submh‘s ‘fha? fhe compmman? waS abused by fine accused/appeiiam wifhin public vigw and fhus The cffenca uwar Sem‘ion 3 (1) {x} of The Schgduied Cas‘fe c3: Scheduied Tribe (Praven’rim of A‘fmci‘rias) Ac? is made ouf. 6. I have heard counsei far The par'fies and perused H16 mafer‘ial avai3abie 0n record inclutiing judgmem‘ impugned. 7. Wriffen vapor? (ExP-E) dafad‘ 28.121995 has beer; made by The compiainam’ using ieh‘er head 0f AH India Sann‘a $ainik Dal, Paragaon showing himseh‘ To be a Presiden‘f of *he said Ni India Sarm‘a. Samik Dal, Paragaon. Tn§s repom‘ has been addressed To The CoilecTar and copy of which has also been forwarded Te The Chief MinisTer, MinisTer of concerned deparTmenT, Commissioner (AnushuchiT JaTi & Jan JaTi Vibhag), SP. and oTher higher auThoriTies. 1n The subjeci' coiumn of The compiainT iT has been menTianed Tha’r ai' The Time of cross-examinaTion m” The campiainam‘, The appeiianT has used words "sale chamm”. Whiie describing The incident campiainani has sTa‘i'ed Thai when The Tahsiidar ’was enquiring inTo The maTTer, uncansTiTuTiana! wards were used by The accusedfappeiianT in @ Jrhe presence of Tahsiidar‘, Up-éarpcmc‘h, §3anch and a’rher viiiagers as a resui’r 0f w’mch ha had suffered men‘raé agcny‘ Whiie depasmg m 1h? Coum‘ compiainam Ishwar Lcxl (PW—1) has s’rmed Thaw *he appeliam‘ xs Dheemer’ by caste wheraas his caste is Mahar’ which comes undar fha cafegcry 0f Scheduied Casfe. He has fur‘Tiaer grated *rha‘f he i$ doing agricuifuml wcr‘k ‘ in a fieid which he haa Taken from ihe accused/appeiiah’r and The rays’rr‘y of The said mm has drecxdy bean done bu? the mufafion preceedings are pending. He has furfher smfed ”rho? 0n 27.12.1995 Naib Tahsiidar RS. Ecnpipre (PW—Z) had vish‘ed vihage Paragaon and wear-dad Tha s’ramman’r af 1’he accused/appehan? anti fhen he had also cahed him and fhis exercise was done in mspec’r sf the cerfificafion of fhe land. Ha has a§so smfad Thm‘ when 'khe Naib Tahshdar‘ was making enquiry from him, accused/appeham hat} said “Saks Chamrq Jhuh‘: 30f mix: hm} 5al75b"and on accouni' of ‘rhis, he became fehse because he was gbused by ’rhe accused/'cppehan? in presence of everyone. He has fuh?her swied ’rhaf he had asked The Tahsildah Tc: see as TO how “the accusedz’appehan‘t was abusing him ans Then Tahsiidar made accused undehs‘mhd fha‘r he shcuid no? do like This He has fur‘wer s‘hn‘ed Tha‘r affer' camplefmg The ennre mveshgahon Tahsl dar haa asked him fa go. In fhe crass~exammahsm he has admn‘fed The fac’r ‘ iha‘i‘ ihe iend in ques‘iioh was purchased by him ih ihe hame of his wife from The accused/appeiimi‘ fat" a consideraTion af Rs.1,75,000/s and a? fhe hme of hegisfr‘y The amounf sf Rs.?8,500/— was given To The appehah‘s‘. He has further admifted ‘rhe fac? iha‘r The hhcceedings were pending befsre The caurf of Tahsildar in whioh ‘fhe accused/appeham had surfed ‘fhaf he has no? received ‘rhe entire amouhi aha, 7‘herefor’e, he wiii no“? permi‘f any cer‘H‘fica’s’bn of The iand. He has furfher' admi‘h‘ed The facT fhcn‘ he ‘nQS no? bdged any repom‘ in The palice s’ra‘kiOh Amhng which is 5 kms. away from his viiiage and on fhe second day, he had fHed wrif‘ren Papal”? (Ex.P-1). Ha has Cdsa admif‘s‘ed fhe fac‘f Thm‘ in The wriffen repch‘i' (ExP—i) “:‘here is rm mem‘iOh of wards ”Sake Chamm J'fiufh 30/ mm hm; 5a/ze He has alsa adméf‘fed The fac? fhaf affer' 4-5 months, fhe poiice came To enquire #he ma‘Her‘, where far- The firs? fime, he had infer-med The pohce aboa? using of word “Chamr’a sa/e" by The appehanf‘. 8. RS. Sonpipre (PW—2) - Nayah Tahsiidah has sfa‘red in his evidence Thai he had gone 1‘0 viiiage i’amgaon affer' receiving a compiainf from ‘rhe campiaiham‘ fa ‘i'he effec? Thaf some persons were iikeiy “fo assaiii'i him and, ihehefor'e, enquiry be made and during enquiry words “ Sa/e Chamari' was used by The accused/appelianT. He has fur‘rher sTaTeé Tho‘T abusive word used by The accusecilappeiian'i was no? indecenT buT ThereafTer, he had asked The accused/appeiianT noT To use such language because even he was feeiing bad for This word. He has admiTTed The facT Tha‘T he was hoT aware abauT The casTe of The compiainanfr and The muTaTion case is pending before his courT. Ih para 4 a2? his cross—examinaTion he has admiTTed The TacT ThaT he had noT informed The poiice To The effecT ThaT he had gone To viiiage Paragaon for enquiry ih respecT of The compiainT made by The compiainanT showing apprehensioh of some incident He has aiso admiTTed The facT ThaT some dispuTe in respecT OT The paymenT of remaining amounT of The iane purchased by The wife of The compiainanT is pending. In oaragraph 9 of his cross examinaTion he has sTaTed ' Thm‘ when The sfm‘emenf of the compiainf was being r'eCGr-ded, *rhe appellan? had used The word “Sale cim‘nm" bu? he had n0? uffer’ed fhose words ‘fc “We comggainanf and he‘ canncn‘ Teii Q21 To for whom The ward isa/e aim/71m” was used‘ Sub Impecfor‘ P.P. Singh {PW—3) is fhe Irwes?iga’ring Officer who has suppor’red The case of The prosecu?ion. 9. Trug ff Ils' Mar cal/Ihg a member of Schedukd CasLfe ‘Z‘ham&r"‘Wif/1 in fem‘ f0 I'ns’u/f or humiiléfe him in a place wz'fh/n pub/lb View is cerfain/y an offeme under 5ecf/cm 3(J)(X} of i/‘ie Act Wheh‘ier' fhere was infenf 2‘0 msu/f or izumim’n‘e by uszhg five word ‘Z‘lmmaif" WW 0f caurse depend on #ze confexf in which if was used. Furffiermore while view/mg the em‘fre evidence, Me caunf has 7‘0 came f0 me canc/usxbn as f0 in w/mf confexf Me word ‘Z'hamm" has been used. Purine/4 fram fne ewe/ewe if should be ref/ecfed Mai by using word "C'hamar’i fire compia/nanf has been insu/fed or'ihfinndafed or numiiim‘ed in any manner. In fhe case in hand, i? has been nowhere sfafed by fhe compiainanf fhaT fhe words ‘sale chamar" were used by fhe accused/appe!!anf wifh an imamim 1‘0 i'nsul'r or inTimidcn‘e 01" To humiiia’re him. Fur‘fher‘more, RS. Sonpipre (PW-2) - Nayab Tahsiidar‘ has aiso cafegoricaHy sfa‘red in paragraph 9 of his cross examina'rian Thcd' whee The srafemen'r of the complainam‘ was being recorded, ine appeiiani had used The ward “.5o/e chamr" bu? he had no? ui’ier'eci ihose wards To “ihe compiainam‘ and he canno‘r 'ieii as To Wham The word ‘sa/e chamm”was used. From The evidence of This wiTness and ThaT of compioinanT iT is apporen‘i Tho? The compiainon‘i had purchased some iond of The aceused/appeilanT in The name of Jwg‘ A A 3 £, a { z his wife cmd were was same dispufe in respecf of The cufsfanding paymem‘ of The said icmd and Thus 'i'he possibilh‘y of faise imphca‘fion aiso cannm‘ be ruied OU‘L Thus, an ‘rhe basis of evidence adduced by fhe camplainan’r if is difféculf 1‘0 uphoidv The ccnvic‘fion of 'i'he accused/appeiianf under fhe provisiom of 'khe epecia! Act. 10. Considering The evidence of fhe compiaincm? (PW-1) and i'ne Naib Tahsiidar (PW-2) and The eniir‘e ma'ier'iai includirig ‘ihe wri‘i‘ien reporf (Ex.P—5)’ This coum‘ is of The considered View Thai ihe prosecui’ion has failed i0 pmve ifs case beyond ali The reasanabie doubfs and in These circums‘rances The benefif 0f doub‘i musi go f0 The accused/appeiian‘i. 11. In conciusion, fhe appeai is aiioweci. impugned judgmem‘ dm‘e’d 31.3.1997 is hereby sei' aside. Appellani is acqui'?‘ied of The charge ieveiied againsT him. Since appelicmT is already on baii, his bail bonds sTand discharged. Sd/n Pritinker Diwaker Judge