Jhallu and Others vs State of M.P.

Vimla Jain, J.—Appellants/accused Jhalla, Ramashray, Brindawan and Ramswaroop have preferred this appeal u/s 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code being aggrieved by the judgment dated 14.6.1996 passed by Special Judge, Chhatarpur in Special Case No. 65/1994 whereby each of the appellants/accused had been convicted for the offence punishable u/s 3(1)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter shall be referred to as ''Act'') and had been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months to each of the appellant. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that in between complainant and appellants/accused persons houses, there is a way to come in and go out and this is the only way for use of complainant and his family members. Complainant submitted in his report (Ex. P/3) that previously the accused persons blocked their path through which he could come in and go out of his house. Swamideen, who was the father of complainant, applied u/s 131 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, that his right of way should be restored and won the case in second appeal No. 475/A-13-1971-72 which was decided on 27.12.1972 by Commissioner, Rewa. After that, the Naib Tahsildar by his order passed on 1.8.1975 restored the right of way to him. When complainant Ramprasad had gone out of station on election work, in the intervening night of 23.11.1993, the appellants/accused had constructed a wall on the 10 ft. x 20 ft. outer passage/way of the complainant and had installed an iron gate in the wall. When his family members tried to stop the construction, the appellants had abused them by using filthy language and armed with ''ballam'', ''farsa'' and ''lathi'' ran behind them to assault them and shouted at them to go away as it was not their land and the house of ''harijan'' could not exist among their houses. Appellants further shouted at them that complainant could not be permitted to live among them as they could neither use the water touched by them nor keep relations with them. Appellants did not permit them to pass from the encroached way and threatened them that if they try to pass from there, they would be killed. A detailed report of the incident was lodged by the complainant at Police Station Chandla. After enquiry, crime was registered against the appellants/accused under sections 447, 294 and 506-B I.P.C. and sections 3(1)(5) and 3(1)(15) of the Act vide Ex. P/3 and investigation was done. During investigation spot map, Ex. P/2, was prepared, appellants were arrested and challan was filed in the court of Judicial Magistrate.

The case was committed for trial to the Court of Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Chhatarpur, who framed charges under the aforesaid sections. The appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial mainly contending that they had been falsely implicated.

In order to bring home the charges against the appellants, the prosecution had examined as many as six witnesses and two witnesses were examined in defence. The defence of the appellants is of false implication on the basis of false FIR (Ex. P/3), which was made by complainant Ramprasad (P.W. 1) at Police Station Chandla, District Chhatarpur.

The learned Special Judge, on the basis of evidence that had come on record, had acquitted the appellants from the charges under sections 447, 294 and 506-B I.P.C. and section 3(1)(15) of the Act but convicted them for the offence u/s 3(1)(5) of the Act and sentenced each of them to 3 years R.I. with fine of Rs. 1000.

The appellants filed this appeal assailing the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

Learned counsel for the appellants argued the case on merits but concludingly he confined his arguments to the point of sentence only. He prayed that the jail sentence awarded to the appellants should be reduced to the minimum period.

Shri Amit Pandey, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State supported the impugned judgment and sentence and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

Now the question for consideration is that whether the trial Court has committed any illegality in convicting and sentencing the appellants for the said offence.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

For the sake of convenience, Section 3(1)(v) of the Act, 1989 is extracted below:

Punishments for offences of atrocities-(1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,

(v) wrongfully dispossess a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe from his land or premises or interferes with the enjoyment of his rights over any land, premises or water.;

shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine.

On going through the above-said provisions of law and record of the case, I have perused the first information report and statements of prosecution witnesses. Ramprasad (PW 1) stated that he knew the accused persons. They are Gadariyas. He is KHAGAR and member of a Scheduled Caste. In between his and appellants'' house there is only one way to come in and go out of his house. He further stated that in the year 1969-70 appellants/accused persons had closed the path by wooden gate. After that the Naib Tahsildar by his order restored the right of way. Thereafter, he and his family members have been using the path continuously. He further stated that he had gone to village Chhapar on election duty and his brother has also gone Ramjhala on election duty. His brother''s wife Kusumrani and one brother Ramdev were at home. When he returned at home Kusumrani and Ramdev told him that appellants/accused had closed the path by iron gate. When his family members told not to do so, appellants/accused had abused them by using filthy language. They had also threatened them to go away from village otherwise they would kill them. At that time, Rameshwar and Paltu had come and intervened. He further stated that the gate was fixed by accused persons, therefore, they could not enter their house. His brother Maiyadeen lodged a report at Police Station Chandla but no action was taken on such report. Thereafter, he submitted written application (Ex. P/1) at Harijan prakostha.

The testimony of the complainant (PW 1) had been corroborated by the deposition of Kusumrani (PW 2). She clearly stated that accused Brindawan, Ramashray and Ramswaroop had fixed the iron gate on the path. When she and her brother-in-law Ramdev told not to do so, appellants had abused them by using filthy language. At that time accused Brindawan was armed with Ballam, Jhallu was having Farsa, accused Ramswaroop and Ramshray had lathis. She also stated that after hearing hue and cry, Paltu and Rameshwar came on the spot and interfered in the matter. She had clearly stated that accused persons had told them

Paltu (PW 3) and Rameshwar (PW 4) also supported the version of the complainant (PW 1), Kusumrani (PW 2) and Ramdev (PW 3).

During the cross examination of these witnesses, nothing could be elicited to discredit their evidence. On a close scrutiny of the evidence of witnesses, I find that they were reliable witnesses. The learned trial Judge, in my opinion, did not commit any error in placing reliance on their evidence.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the conviction of the appellants u/s 3(1)(v) of the Act is hereby affirmed.

Now, I will consider the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants relating to adequacy of the sentence and the prayer for reducing the awarded jail sentence u/s 3(1)(v) of the Act, in view of the established principle of law that the determination of the quantum of punishment would always depend upon the ancillary factors which would be subject to the statutory obligations specifically provided by law in force.

Considering the long pendency of the case in which the appellants have suffered mental agony for more than eighteen years by presenting themselves on various dates in the trial court and also before this court and the overall circumstances of the matter, after affirming the conviction of the appellants u/s 3(1)(v) of the Act, I deem fit to reduce their jail sentence to the period of six months by enhancing the amount of fine.

In view of the aforesaid discussion by affirming the conviction of the appellants u/s 3(1)(v) of the Act, the jail sentence awarded to the appellants u/s 3(1)(v) of the Act is hereby modified and their sentences are reduced from three years rigorous imprisonment to six months rigorous imprisonment by enhancing the amount of fine on each accused from Rs. 1000 to Rs. 3000. The amount of fine deposited by the appellants before the trial court shall be adjusted in the above mentioned enhanced fine amount. The remaining fine amount is to be deposited by the appellants in the trial court within one month from today, failing which the appellants will have to suffer three months R.I.

Out of the total amount of fine, Rs. 6,000 will be given to the complainant Ramprasad (PW 1) by calling him in the trial court through summon.

The appellants are on bail, therefore, they are directed to surrender themselves before the trial court on or before 20.11.2012 for facing the jail sentence awarded by this Court failing which the trial court is directed to take appropriate steps to take the appellants in custody and send them to jail to undergo the jail sentence. If the appellants had remained in jail during investigation/trial of this case, such period shall be set off as per the provisions of section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

With the aforesaid directions and modifications in the sentence, this criminal appeal stands disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the trial court for information and compliance.