1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH ; JABALPUR Cr.R.No. 1514/2011 Bansilal and others Vs. State of M.P For the Applicants : Shri R.K.Nagar, Advocate. For Respondent : Smt. Nirmala Nayak, GA. ORDER (11/11/2011) Per : U.C.Maheshwari J. The applicants/accused, have filed this revision being aggrieved by the order dated 8.7.2011 passed by the Special Judge, Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (in short `the Act'), Jabalpur in Special Case No.34/11 framing the charges against each of the applicants for the offence of section 294/34, 323/34 of the IPC and section 3(1)(x) of the Act. 2. The facts giving rise to this revision in short are that on 26.4.2011 on receiving the information of some quarrel and incident from the complainant Gend Singh R/o Uchehra at Police Station Kundam, District Jabalpur, the same was recorded in the Rojnamcha Sanha No.860. On holding the preliminary inquiry, it was revealed that some cognizable offence has been committed, on which, the FIR was registered as Crime No.82/11 against the applicants for the offence of section 294,323,506 and 34 of the IPC and section 3(i)(x) of the Act. As per averment of it on dated 23.4.2011 said complainant Gend Singh was in need of tractor for bringing his grain from his village to some place, for which, at the fare of Rs.300/-, he hired the tractor from applicant No.1 Bansilal. On the way, near Bus stand Kundam, said Bansilal refused to bring his grain on his 2 tractor and returned the sum of the fare. Thereafter, the complainant hired the tractor of one Panchamlal Chakrawarty for the same, on which, the applicants abused the complainant on account of his caste “Gond” and also to said Chakrawarty and Preeti and also beaten them. On lodging the report at PS Kundam, the same was recorded in the Rojnamcha sanha No.860 of dated 23.4.2011 and thereafter the victims were sent to hospital, where on medical examination, their MLC reports were prepared. Subsequent to it, on dated 26.4.2011, a report in writing was also given by the complainant to said police station contending that on 23.4.2011, for bringing his grain from his village he hired the tractor of Bansilal. On the way at Bus stand Kundam, he refused to bring his grain from village, on which, on account of returning their sum of fare, some quarrel took place between him and applicant No.1 Bansilal, in which all the applicants with intention to humiliate the complainant on account of his caste covered under the Act, abused him with filthy languages and also beaten them. When Panchamlal and Preeti Chakrawarty came to rescue him then they were also subjected to abuse and beating by them, on which, the complainant fled away and came to police station to lodge the report. At the time of lodging the earlier report due to fear of the applicants, he did not mention the name of applicants No.2 and 3 as culprits of the incident and the same was lodged only against applicant No.1 Bansilal, while he and aforesaid two victims, were abused and beaten by all the applicants. In the above-mentioned circumstances, on establishing the cognizable offence, the FIR was registered against the applicants as Crime No.82/11 for the offence of section 294,323,506/34 of the IPC and of section 3(1)(x) of the Act. Said Panchamlal and Preeti were also sent to hospital for examination where their MLC reports were prepared. Caste certificate of the complainant was taken from the concerning Gram Panchayat. The applicants were arrested and also 3 interrogatory statements of the witnesses were recorded. On completion of the investigation, the applicants were charge sheeted for the alleged offence. 3. The trial Court on evaluation of the papers of the charge sheet framed the aforesaid charge against the applicants, on which, they, have come to this court with this revision. 4. Shri R.K.Nagar, counsel of the applicants, after taking me through the copy of the charge sheet along with the impugned order and the charges framed, argued that at the initial stage the complainant did not stated anything regarding beating with Preeti Chakrawarty. Even the specific allegation showing the alleged incident took place with intention to humiliate the complainant on account of his caste covered under the Act had not been stated and, such allegations were alleged in the subsequent report in writing submitted by the complainant. In such premises on proper evaluation of the charge sheet, the alleged charges or, in any case, in the available factual matrix as appeared from the charge sheet, the charge of section 3(1)(x) of the Act deserves to be set aside. He also said that in the interrogatory statements of the witnesses just to implicate the applicants with the alleged offence, exaggerated version has been stated by them. The same being contrary to initial FIR, could not be considered for framing the charges and prayed for discharging all the applicants from the alleged charge by admitting and allowing this revision. He also placed his reliance on a decision of this Court in the matter of Sushila Devi Sharma Vs. State of MP- 2005(3) MPLJ 152. 5. Keeping in view his arguments, I have carefully gone through the papers of the charge sheet placed on the record along with the impugned order and the framed charges. It is apparent from the FIR as well as report in writing given by the complainant that during the course of alleged quarrel, applicant No.1 Bansilal abused the complainant just to humiliate him on account of his caste and also 4 abused the other victims and, in continuation, they were beaten also by the applicant Bansilal. In subsequent report in writing, the complainant categorically stated the act of each of the applicants attributed by them in the alleged incident. It is apparent from both the reports that the applicants abused the complainant with intention to humiliate him on account of his caste and in continuation, not only the complainants but other victims were also beaten by them. In such background the entire investigation was carried out. As per MLC report all the three victims sustained the injuries on their person. Even on recording the interrogatory statements of witnesses, namely, Gend Singh Gond, Panchamlal, and Preeti Chakrawarty, Shambu Singh, Rajju, Ramu and Sufali, they have categorically stated the same version as stated by the complainant in the aforesaid reports. On going through such entire evidence collected by the investigation agency, I am of the considered view that prima facie circumstances for framing the impugned charge are available in it. At the stage of framing the charge, no Court is empowered to ignore any part of the evidence collected by the investigation agency and discharge the accused from the alleged offence. As per settled proposition, at the stage of framing the charge, the Court has not to evaluate the evidence keeping in view whether on holding the trial the accused like the applicants may be convicted in the matter or not. In the aforesaid premises, I have not found any error , perversity or irregularity in the order impugned framing the above mentioned charges against the applicants. 6. In view of the aforesaid overwhelming evidence in the charge sheet showing that the complainant Gend Singh Gond was humiliated on account of his caste also, the aforesaid cited case of this court in the matter of Sushila Devi Sharma (supra) is not helping to the applicants. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I have not found any error or perversity 5 in the order impugned requiring interference at this stage to discharge the applicants under the revisional jurisdiction of this court. Consequently, this revision being devoid of any merits is hereby dismissed at the stage of motion hearing. (U.C.Maheshwari) Judge MKL 6 7