Narayan Singh vs State of Madhya Pradesh

G.S. Solanki, J.—The appellant has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by impugned judgment dated 18.11.1997 passed by the learned Special Judge [Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)] Act (hereinafter referred to ''the Act''), Sehore in S.T. No. 89/1997 by which appellant has been convicted under Sections 3(1)(x) of the Act and sentenced to undergo RI for 6 months and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo RI for 45 days. Facts, in short, giving rise to this appeal are that on 23.9.1996 at about 6.30 AM, complainant Indra Singh (PW 1) and his brother-in-law Suresh (PW 4) were going to Barkheda. When they reached near the house of the accused, the accused came out and intercepted complainant Inder Singh and abused him by using his caste name Bhanged. When complainant made an inquiry that why he has been abused, the accused/appellant stated that his pigs were entered into his agricultural field and caused extensive damages to maize crops. Thereafter, again appellant abused the complainant by using abusive language and humiliated him. Complainant lodged the report Ex. P/1 at Police Station Ahmedpur at about 6.55 PM on the same day. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, the appellant has been arrested.

After usual investigation, the appellant was charge sheeted before Special Judge. Learned Special Judge has framed the charges u/s 294 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Act against the appellant. Appellant abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication. The appellant has adduced two witnesses namely Harisingh (DW 1) and Gajrajsingh (DW 2) as his defence witnesses.

On appraisal of evidence on record, learned Special Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned hereinabove, hence this appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial Court has committed illegality in not appreciating the evidence on record in its proper perspective. It is further submitted that the incident took place on the basis of the fact that pigs of the complainant were entered into the field and caused extensive damages to maize crops. This fact was admitted by the witness Suresh (PW 4) and further supported by evidence of defence witnesses Harisingh (DW 1) and Gajrajsingh (DW 2). In these circumstances, during quarrel if the name of the caste uttered by the appellant, same does not amount to the humiliation to the complainant, therefore, prays for setting aside the charge u/s 3(1)(x) of the Act and further prays for acquittal of the appellant to the said charge.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer of the appellant and supported and justified the impugned judgment.

I have perused the impugned judgment along with record and statement of complainant Indersingh (PW 1) and eye witness Suresh (PW 4).

It is true that the incident took place on the basis of the fact that pigs of the complainant were entered into the field and caused damages to maize crops of the appellant. In these circumstances, if the appellant used some abusive language and uttered the caste name of complainant, whereby committed any obscene act, then same may be an offence u/s 294 of IPC but during quarrel mere using the caste name by the appellant, same does not amount to humiliation of the complainant. In these circumstances, trial Court has committed illegality in recording the conviction u/s 3(1)(x) of the Act, therefore, same is liable to be set aside. However, on the basis of evidence on record, the trial Court has convicted the appellant to the charge u/s 294 of IPC is hereby affirmed.

In these circumstances, this appeal is partly allowed. The conviction and sentence recorded u/s 3(1)(x) of the Act is hereby set aside. However, the conviction recorded against the appellant under Sections 294 of the IPC by the trial Court, is affirmed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the incident took place in the year 1996, i.e. 17 years have elapsed, no useful purpose will be served by sending the appellant again to jail, in these circumstances, the appellant is sentenced to fine amount of Rs. 500/- only which has already been deposited before the trial Court.

The appellant is on bail, his bail bonds and surety bonds are discharged. Record of the trial Court be sent back immediately, along with a copy of this judgment for necessary compliance.