Hiradas and Others vs State of M.P.

S.K. Seth, J.

Appellants have been convicted u/s 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as Act) and Appellant Hiradas has been sentenced to undergo 7 months rigorous imprisonment fine of Rs. 100/-has also been imposed and in default of payment of fine one month S.I. has been awarded. Appellant Jagdish and Ramdayal have also been convicted u/s 3(1)(x) of the Act. They have been sentenced to undergo 3 years rigorous imprisonment. Fine of Rs. 100/- has also been imposed upon these two Appellants and in default of payment of fine, they have been ordered to undergo one-month simple imprisonment. Aforesaid conviction and sentence has been handed down by the Ist, Additional Sessions Judge, Mandsaur in Special Case No. 94/1992. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentences, Appellants have preferred this appeal.

Necessary facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal are that on 14.9.1992 at about 8.30 in the morning, when Ishwarlal (PW-1) was taking his cattle to the grazing ground, Appellant Ramdayal started abusing him and when asked Ramdayal not to abuse, Ramdayal ran after him to assault. Ishwarlal ran to his grazing field and thereafter, all the Appellants came there. Appellant Jagdish and Hiradas were armed with Lathis. According to the Prosecution story Ramdayal hurled stone causing injury in the neck of Ishwarlal, as a result, he fell down thereafter, Appellant Jagdish and Hiradas both death Lathi blows. Balakdas (PW-2) and Bansilal (PW-3) rushed to the spot and intervened in the matter. Balakdas brought Ishwarlal to the village and informed Jadoolal, brother of Ishwarlal. Thereafter, FIR (Ex.P/1) was lodged by Ishwarlal at Police Station Narayangarh, District-Mandsaur. As a result, the police machinery swung into action and started the investigation. After completion of investigation, challan was filed against the Appellants for offences punishable u/s s. 323, 294 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. Learned trial Court vide order sheet dated 18.1.1993 framed charge against Appellants only for offence u/s 3(1)(x) of the Act and not for offences punishable u/s s. 323, 294 IPC. State did not challenge the Order dated 18.1.1993. All Appellants denied the charges and submitted that they have been falsely implicated on account previous enmity.

Learned trial Court on the basis of prosecution evidence found that Appellants are guilty of having committed offence u/s 3(1)(x) of the Act and according convicted and sentenced them as mentioned above.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Learned Counsel for the Appellants placing reliance on the decisions reported in 2003 Cri LR 113, Mangilal and Anr. v. State of M.P.; 2000 (1) M.P. Weekly Notes 207, Rooplal v. State of M.P. and 2000 (1) M.P. Weekly Notes 64 Mansharam v. State of M.P. submitted that no offence u/s 3(1)(x) of the Act has been made out by the prosecution, so as to maintain the conviction of the Appellants. Learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that mere utterance of the word "Balate" does not constitute any intention to insult and humiliate the complainant in the name of caste. Learned Counsel for the Appellant also submitted that the delay in lodging the FIR has also not been properly explained by the prosecution. Learned Counsel also submitted that possibility of false implication of all Appellants can not be ruled out on account of previous enmity arising out of the use of right of way on (Meid) dividing the agriculture field of Appellants and the complainant.

Learned Panel Lawyer for the State while supporting the judgment of the trial Court submitted that mere utterance of the word "Balate" by itself is sufficient to constitute offence against the Appellants as word was uttered intention to insult the complainant.

The question that arises for determination is whether the acts attributed to Appellants constitute an offence u/s 3(1)(x) of the Act. In order to determine said question prosecution evidence has to be examined. It is for the prosecution to prove "intention to cause insult or humiliate" like any other relevant fact. Entire prosecution case hinges upon the testimony of (PW-1) Ishwarlal, the complainant, (PW-2) Balakdas and (PW-3) Banshilal. From the evidence of Ishwarlal (PW-1), it is clear that initially Appellant Ramdayal has abused him in filthy language and uttered the word "Balate" and when the complainant asked him to desist, Appellant rushed to assault him. As result complainant ran away from the spot. Neither in the FIR nor in the deposition complainant stated that work "Balate" was heard by any one or the complainant felt insulted or humiliated. When no one was within the hearing vicinity and heard the offending words, the Appellants can not be held guilty of the alleged offence punishable u/s 3(1)(x) of the Act. Second part of alleged incident comprises of the part when all Appellants came to grazing field of the complainant and gave him beating. From the evidence on record, it is clear that in this alleged episode no ingredients to constitute an offence u/s (3)(1)(x) were present. Thus, mere utterance of word "Balate" by itself would not be sufficient to show the intention to insult and humiliate the complainant in the name of caste. This aspect of the matter had been examined by this Court in the aforesaid decision cited by learned Counsel for the Appellants. Thus, following the decisions as referred to above of this Court, I find that the prosecution has failed to prove the necessary ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, so as to warrant the conviction of the Appellant. Undisputedly there is a history of previous enmity. Animosity is a double edged weapon which cuts both ways. It may constitute a motive for the commission of the crime and at the same time it may also provide a motive for false implication. From the evidence it is also clear that possibility false implication on account of previous enmity cannot be ruled out. It is alleged that the incident took place on 14.9.1992 at about 8.30 in the morning whereas the FIR was lodged in the next day i.e. 15.9.1992 at about 1.00 p.m. in the after-noon. The distance is hardly 30 kms. and it is not disputed that the motor transport is available between the village, where the incident took place and the Police Station where the FIR, was lodged. No cogent reason was offered by the prosecution for not lodging the FIR within reasonable time. There one aspect of the matter. Complainant Ishwarlal in the FIR has mentioned that Appellants had caused injuries, but no medical evidence has been led by the prosecution to prove this fact, although the Doctor examined complainant and found in injury on the person of the Complainant. The medical report is on record but not proved in evidence. Since the report goes in favour of the Appellants, they can certainly take advantage of unproved report and this Court can also take the same in consideration as has been held by Division Bench of this Court in a decision reported in 1997 (1) MPJR 120.

As a result of foregoing discussion, the appeal filed on behalf of the Appellants is allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence u/s 3(1)(x) of the Act is set-aside and the Appellants are acquitted of the said charge. The amount of fine, if deposited by Appellants pursuant to the impugned judgment of the trial Court be refunded to them. Their Bail Bonds stands discharged. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. Order accordingly.