Mohan Bai Chamar vs Badan Singh and Others

N.K. Gupta, J.—The applicant has preferred the present revision against the judgment of acquittal dated 8.3.2000 passed by the Special Court under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Bhopal in Special Case No. 13/1999, whereby the trial Court has acquitted the respondents from the charges of offence under Section 294, 323, 506-B, 341 of IPC as well as under Section 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter it will be referred to as "Special Act").

The facts of the case, in short, are that, on 30.4.1998, at about 7 p.m., the victim Rajesh went to fetch some water from handpump, situated at village Bijorapura. Some quarrel took place at the spot with the respondents and the respondents Raju and Rajan started assaulting the victim Rajesh. On his shouting, Bhagwat Singh, Mohan and Kanhaiya went to the spot then, the respondents assaulted them and also threatened them to kill in future. Mohan Bai has lodged an FIR, Ex.P/1 at Police Station Gunga. All the victims were sent for their medico legal examination and treatment. After due investigation, a chargesheet was filed before the Special Court.

The respondents abjured their guilt. They took a plea that they were falsely implicated in the matter. However, no defence evidence was adduced.

Special Judge after considering the prosecution''s evidence, acquitted the respondents from all the charges.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

According to the prosecution story, initially the crime was committed with Rajesh (P.W.3). Rajan and other witnesses came to the spot when incident of assault was started. Rajesh (P.W.3) did not state anything against the respondents that they abused the victim Rajesh on the basis of his caste. It is accepted by Rajesh that there was a marriage of his brother Kailash in the house and therefore, he was required with a huge stock of water and when quarrel started, he had to take only 2 more buckets of water. It means that Rajesh and his family members were taking water from handpump and not giving any opportunity to others to take water. It is not a case of Rajesh that he was deprived water from handpump because of his caste. Hence, the trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents from the charges of offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Special Act.

The incident took place at the place, where the handpump was affixed. Rajesh was taking water in buckets from that handpump. He was not going anywhere at that time and therefore, it is not a case of wrongful restraint. The trial Court would not have framed the charges of offence under Section 341 of IPC and therefore if the respondents are acquitted from that charge then, no illegality has been done by the trial Court.

Similarly, witnesses Rajesh (P.W.3), Mohan Bai (P.W.1) and Bhagwat Singh (P.W.3) have not stated the words exactly told by the accused persons and it is not made clear that out of these accused persons, who uttered such filthy abuses. When words were not informed to the Court then, it was not possible for the Court to held that the respondents had uttered obscene words. The trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents from the charge of offence under Section 294 of IPC.

If the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is accepted as it is that the respondents gave a threat to them then, the incident took place on 30.4.1998 and the witnesses were examined in July, 1999. They did not say that any threat was executed. Hence, if threat was given then, still it does not constitute the offence of criminal intimidation. The trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents from the charge of offence under Section 506 of IPC.

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the injuries of Mohan Bai, Kanhaiya, Rajesh and Bhagwat Singh were duly proved by Dr.D.K. Dehariya (P.W.5). He examined the victims Kanhaiya, Mohan Bai, Rajesh and Bhagwat Singh and gave his reports, Ex.P/7 to Ex.P/10. He found one injury to each of them and hence, the respondents would have been convicted of offence under Section 323 of IPC. It is true that Dr.Dehariya proved various medical reports. The injury caused to the victims Kanhaiya and Rajesh were superficial and those could be self inflicted. No injury was found to the victim Mohan Bai. However, the evidence relating to number of culprits is doubtful. If the victims were assaulted by as many as 6 persons then, at least 6 injuries would have been caused in all to the victims. In all 3 injuries were caused to 3 victims. It means that 3 of the respondents did not participate in the crime of assault. If FIR is perused then, it is mentioned in the FIR that Bhagwan Singh gave a blow of stick on the head of Bhagwat Singh and Mohan Bai (P.W.1) has stated in her statement that Bhagwan Singh assaulted the victim Bhagwat Singh by a stick, whereas Bhagwat Singh (P.W.2) has stated that Narayan gave a blow of iron rod on his head. Similarly, Rajesh (P.W.3) has stated that the respondents Raju and Rajan started assaulting him but, he could not give any specification about the single injury caused to him that who caused that injury. If he sustained an abrasion near his left eye then, he should have known the author of that injury. Similarly, Mohan Bai has claimed that she sustained injury by stick and fists given by Bhagwan Singh but, no injury was found to her. Under these circumstances, the victims could not fix the accused persons, who assaulted them. If Narayan had assaulted the victim Bhagwat Singh by rod then, why that fact was not mentioned in the FIR and if Bhagwan Singh has assaulted the victim Bhagwat Singh by stick on his head then, such fact mentioned in the FIR is not corroborated by the victim Bhagwat Singh himself. FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence and therefore, looking to the inter se material contradictions between the statements of various witnesses and also between their evidence and FIR, hence, it was highly doubtful that out of these respondents, who assaulted any of the victims.

Under these circumstances, the trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents from the charge of offence under Section 323/34 of IPC for 4 victims in such a doubtful situation. If doubt is created then, benefit of doubt is always given to the accused.

The applicant could not show any illegality or perversity committed by the trial Court while acquitting the respondents and therefore, there is no substance in the revision, so that it may be accepted. Consequently, the revision filed by the applicant is hereby dismissed.

The respondents are on bail. Their presence is no more required before this Court and therefore, it is directed that their bail bonds shall stand discharged.

Copy of the judgment be sent to the Court below alongwith its record for information.