Pardesi Ram vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Challenge in this appeal is to judgment of conviction and sentence dated 26th April 2002 passed by learned Special Judge, Special Court, Raipur in Special Sessions Trial No.141 of 2001, whereby the appellants -Shiv Singh and Anand Ram have been held guilty of commission of offence punishable under Sections 3 (1) (x) of the   Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “Act of 1989”) and Section 323 of IPC and sentenced them as under :-

Appellants

Conviction

Sentence

Shiv Singh

u/S 3 (1) (x) of the SC/ST Act and Section 323 of IPC

RI for 6 months and fine of Rs.500/- and in in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 1 month.

Anand Ram

u/S 3 (1) (x) of the SC/ST Act and Section 323 of IPC

RI for 6 months and fine of Rs.500/- and in in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 1 month.

Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 23.04.2001 at about 8:00 PM, complainant Ramnarayan, Sarpanch of village got knowledge that Pardeshi and his wife Heerawavti are engaged in selling illicit liquor. After receipt of information, complainant alongwith Shrawan Kumar Verma (Peon of the Village Panchayat) and Milan Yadav went to house of Pardeshi and found that co-accused Anand Ram was consuming liquor, which was objected by them, upon which, the accused Pardeshi abused him in filthy language as well as by his cast. Co-accused Heeravati also abused him by his caste. Anand Ram assaulted the complainant and abused him by is caste as also Shiv Singh, son of Pardeshi Ram abused and assaulted him. Incident was reported to concerned Police Station, based upon which, FIR was registered against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 294, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act of 1989. After completion of investigation, investigating agency submitted final report against four persons namely Pardeshi Ram, Shiv Singh, Anand Ram, Heeravati for alleged commission of offence under Sections 294, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act of 1989. Learned trial Court, based on the material in the charge sheet, framed charges against the accused persons for offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act of 1989 and Section 323 of IPC, to which, they have denied. Learned trial Court proceeded with the trail against the appellants. Prosecution examined as many as four witnesses namely Ramnarayan (PW1), Shravan Kumar Verma (PW2), Milan Yadav (PW3) Investigating Officer Sujeet Kumar (PW4) and exhibited four documents as Written report (Ex.P1), FIR (Ex.P-2) Caste Certificate of complainant (Ex.P-3) and Spot Map (Ex.P4) to bring home the guilt of the accused persons. Statement of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. One defence witness namely Smt. Anjani Bai (DW1) was examined by the accused. Learned trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence brought on record by the respective parties held that the prosecution proved the charges under Section (3) (1) (x) of the Act of 1989 and Section 323 of IPC against the accused persons, convicted Pardeshi Ram, Heeravati for offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act of 1989 and Section 323 of IPC and accused Shiv Singh and Anand Ram under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act of 1989, Section 323 of IPC and awarded sentences as mentioned in paragraph- 1 of this judgment.

Shri Sabyasachi Bhaduri, learned counsel for the appellants would submit that two accused/appellants Pardeshi Ram and Heeravati Bai died during pendency of this appeal and the appeal filed on their behalf has been ordered to be abated and corrections to this effect have been made in the cause title of memo of appeal. He contended that as per case of prosecution, when complainant came to know that Pardeshi Ram is engaged in selling illicit liquor in his house, complainant along with two other persons went to house of late Pardeshi and found, accused- Anandram consuming liquor there. He contended that the incident took place inside the house, and therefore, provision under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act of 1989 would not be attracted because as per case of prosecution, the incident did not take place in public view. He next submitted that even if during course of dispute which took place between the complainant and Pardeshi Ram, Heeravati, Shiv Singh and Anandram, there is no allegation that all the accused persons have abused him by his caste only because he belongs to scheduled caste community, with an intent to humiliate him and therefore also it cannot be said that the appellants have committed an offence as defined under Section 3 (1)(x) of the Act of 1989. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Swaran Singh and Ors. Vs. State through Standing Counsel and Anr. (2008) 8 SCC 435 and Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Anr. (2020) 10 SCC 710 (para- 13, 14, 17, 18). In support of his contention, he also referred to the deposition of the defence witness Anjani Bai (DW1) to submit that the incident took place inside the house of Late Pardeshi Ram and it is the complainant and two others who have assaulted Pardeshi Ram. It is next contended by learned counsel for the appellant that in the facts of the case, it cannot be said that the appellants have committed an offence under Section 3(1) (x) of the Act of 1989 when the place of incident is house of one of the accused persons and as per the complaint, complainant himself went inside the house of Late Pardeshi Ram and there some dispute took place.

Learned counsel for the State opposing the submission of leaned counsel for the State would submit that complainant being a Sarpanch belongs to scheduled caste category. When the complainant came to know about involvement of Late Pardeshi Ram, one of the co-accused in selling of illicit liquor from his house, he went there along with two other persons and at that relevant point of time, Pardeshi Ram and other co-accused persons abused the complainant by his caste which was witnessed by two independent witnesses. Shrawan Verma (PW2) and Milan Yadav (PW3) have stated in categorical terms that when complainant asked co-accused Pardeshi not to sell illicit liquor, he abused him by his caste and thereafter his wife also abused by his caste. He also clearly stated that Anand Ram, Ramnarayan assaulted the complainant. Prosecution has proved the charges against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Judgment of conviction passed by learned trial Court is on appreciation of evidence and, therefore, it does not call for any interference.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the trial Court.

Learned counsel for the appellant, apart from other submissions, has primarily raised two main grounds that the incident took place inside the house of accused and is not within the public view, hence, provision under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act of 1989 is not attracted and consequently uttering the abusive words of caste of complainant is not intentionally used to humiliate the complainant hence also the offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act of 1989 will not be attracted against the appellants.

To appreciate the aforementioned submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, I have perused the FIR placed on record as Ex.P-2 which was lodged within three hours of the incident . In FIR, it is mentioned that upon receiving information that co-accused Pardeshi Ram (since deceased) engaged in selling of illicit liquor, he along with Shrawan Verma (Peon of Panchayat) and Milan Yadav went to house of Pardeshi and found that he was engaged in selling illicit liquor. He advised him not to sell liquor upon which he abused him by his caste . The other persons also abused him by his caste and . Co-accused Heeravati and Shiv Singh also abused him by his caste. Complainant Ramnarayan is examined as PW1. In his evidence he stated that after receiving complaint, he went to house of Pardeshi where he found Pardeshi, Anand Ram, Heeravati present. Anand Ram was consuming liquor. Shravan Kumar Verma, Peon of Panchayat, who accompanied the complainant is examined as PW2. In para-2 of examination-in-chief, he stated that in the evening at about 6:30 to 7:00 they went to house of Pardeshi. Complainant asked Pardeshi Ram not to sell illicit liquor. At that time Anand Ram, co-accued, was found sitting consuming liquor. In para-7 of the cross-examination, he made similar statement. Milan Yadav who accompanied complainant is examined as PW3. In his statement also, he stated that he along with Ramnarayan (PW1) and Shravan Kumar Verma (PW2) went to house of accused Pardeshi. He further stated that at the time of incident, Jain Lal also came there to rescue complainant. Investigating Officer Sujeet Kumar is examined as PW4. In his evidence he stated that he prepared the spot map, Ex.P-4 as stated by the complainant. Perusal of spot map (Ex.P-4) proved by Investigating Officer (PW4) mentions the place of incident by marking it as “No.4” which is outside the house of Pardeshi. Written complain is also marked as Ex.P-1 in which also it is mentioned that complainant called Pardeshi Ram. Aforementioned evidence available on record particularly spot map (Ex.P-4) would show that the place of incident is outside the house. There is no mention in the written complaint or FIR that the incident took place inside the house nor it has been stated by the witnesses in specific terms regarding place of incident to be inside the house. The prosecution witnesses were not put any specific suggestion with regard to place of incident to be inside the house of co-accused Pardeshi. Along with complainant, two other persons were present and in front of them, the appellants abused by caste.

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Swaran Singh & Ors. Vs. State through Standing Counsel and Anr. (2008) 8 SCC 435 while considering the words used in provision under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act of 1989 “place within public view” observed that even if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relative or friends) then also it would be an offence since it is in the public view and held as under:-

“28.........Also, even if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then also it would be an offence since it is in the public view. We must, therefore, not confuse the expression “place within public view” with the expression “public place”. A place can be a private place but yet within the public view. On the other hand, a public place would ordinarily mean a place which is owned or leased by the Government or the municipality (or other local body) or gaon sabha or an instrumentality of the State, and not by private persons or private bodies.”

In the facts of the case as discussed above, evidence available on record with regard to place of incident and also in the light of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, submission of learned counsel for the appellant that offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act of 1989 is not attracted, is not sustainable and it is hereby repelled.

So far as second ground raised in this appeal i.e. use of word “chamar” while abusing will not attract provision under Section 3 (1)(x) of the Act of 1989 is concerned, to prove caste of complainant, prosecution submitted caste certificate issued by the Competent Authority mentioning that complainant belongs to scheduled caste community. The complainant who is Sarpanch of the village after receiving information that one of the co-accused Pardeshi was engaged in selling of illicit liquor, he along with other persons went to house of Pardeshi, called him and asked him not to sell the illicit liquor, upon which, Pardeshi abused the complainant using word “chamar”. Similar words were also used by other co-accused persons. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Swarn Singh (supra) has considered the use of words “chamar” while abusing the members of SC and ST and held as under :-

“21. Today the word “chamar” is often used by people belonging to the so-called upper castes or even by OBCs as a word of insult, abuse and derision. Calling a person “chamar” today is nowadays an abusive language and is highly offensive. In fact, the word “chamar” when used today is not normally used to denote a caste but to intentionally insult and humiliate someone.

It may be mentioned that when we interpret section 3(1)(x) of the Act we have to see the purpose for which the Act was enacted. It was obviously made to prevent indignities, humiliation and harassment to the members of SC/ST community, as is evident from the Statement of Objects & Reasons of the Act. Hence, while interpreting Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, we have to take into account the popular meaning of the word “chamar” which it has acquired by usage, and not the etymological meaning. If we go by the etymological meaning, we may frustrate the very object of the Act, and hence that would not be a correct manner of interpretation.

This is the age of democracy and equality. No people or community should be today insulted or looked down upon, and nobody's feelings should be hurt. This is also the spirit of our Constitution and is part of its basic features. Hence, in our opinion, the so-called upper castes and OBCs should not use the word “chamar”' when addressing a member of the Scheduled Caste, even if that person in fact belongs to the “chamar” caste, because use of such a word will hurt his feelings. In such a country like ours with so much diversity - so many religions, castes, ethnic and lingual groups, etc. - all communities and groups must be treated with respect, and no one should be looked down upon as an inferior. That is the only way we can keep our country united.

In our opinion, calling a member of the Scheduled Caste “chamar” with intent to insult or humiliate him in a place within public view is certainly an offence under section 3(1)(x) of the Act. Whether there was intent to insult or humiliate by using the word “chamar” will of course depend on the context in which it was used.”

In the case at hand also, the complainant who belongs to scheduled caste community, when obstructed of selling of illicit liquor, the accused person abused the complainant using word “chamar”. Place of incident is in front of house of accused- Pardeshi by the side of road. It is not only the complainant person was abused but along with complainant, two other persons also abused. In front of them, complainant was being abused by using word “chamar” by the accused persons. Though Milan (PW3) in his evidence has not stated of abusing the complainant by appellant using word “chamar”, it will not make entire case of prosecution to be false where he made allegation against Heeravati and further the evidence of Ramnarayan (PW1) and Shrawan Kumar Verma (PW2) wherein they have clearly stated the act of the appellant of abusing the complainant by caste and also allegation as appearing in the FIR (Ex.P-2).

In the opinion of this Court, calling a member of scheduled caste, “chamar”, in the facts of the case, is with intent to insult or humiliate him.

In the aforementioned facts of the case, second ground raised by learned counsel for the appellant is also not sustainable and is hereby repelled.

For the foregoing, I do not find any perversity in the impugned judgment of conviction passed by learned Court below.

The appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.

The appellants No. 2 & 3 are on bail. They may be sent to jail for serving remaining period of sentence.