Pratap and Others vs State of Madhya Pradesh

N.K. Gupta, J.—The appellants have preferred the present appeal being aggrieved with the judgment dated 28.9.2002 passed by the Special Judge under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Tikamgarh in Special Case No. 75/01, whereby the appellant no.2 has been convicted of the offences under Sections 323/34 of IPC and sentenced to three months S.I. with fine of Rs.250/-, whereas the appellant no.1 has been convicted of offence under Sections 323/34, 294 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities), Act (hereinafter it would be referred as the ''Special Act'') and sentenced to three months'' S.I. with fine of Rs.250/-, fine of Rs.500/- and six months R.I. with fine of Rs.1,000/- respectively.

Facts of the case in short are that the complainant Dayaram (PW-1) had lodged a typed FIR Ex.P/1 at Police Station, Prathvipur that on 16.12.2000 at about 3:00 p.m. in the noon, he was going to his house from the bus stand at village Madiya (Police Station Prathvipur, District Tikamgarh). On the way, the appellant Pratap dashed his bicycle intentionally to the bicycle of the complainant and thereafter, he abused him with the words relating to his caste and also abused him with obscene words. Thereafter, Pratap went inside the house and brought a stick. The appellant Chandan held the victim and Pratap assaulted him by that stick causing injuries on his head, fingers and abdomen. SHO, Prathvipur has registered the case with the document Ex.P/2. The victim Dayaram was sent for his medico legal examination to the Community Health Centre, Prathvipur where Dr. M.K. Jain (PW-3) had examined him and gave his report Ex.P/3. He found three injuries caused by hard and blunt object especially, at left index finger, left elbow and back. He was complaining of chest pain but no injury was found on the chest. After due investigation, the charge sheet was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, who committed the case to the Special Judge.

The appellants abjured their guilt. They took a plea that the accident was caused due to negligence of the complainant. He was dead drunk and thereafter, to save himself from the prosecution, a false FIR was lodged. In defence, Hariram (DW-1) and Mahendra Singh Lodhi (DW- 2) were examined.

The Special Judge after considering the evidence adduced by the parties, convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

As submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the complainant did not produce his caste certificate and therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove that the complainant was a member of scheduled caste. Hence, the appellant no.1 cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Special Act. Dayaram (PW-1) and Chintaman (PW-2) have examined as eyewitnesses, whereas the victim Rambugus was given up and therefore, it shall be presumed that he has turned hostile. Dayaram and Chintaman have stated that the appellant no.1 Pratap has abused the complainant with the words related to his caste but looking to the description given by these witnesses, there is a contradiction between them to the fact that, when the appellant no.1 Pratap had abused the complainant on the basis of words relating to his caste. According to Dayaram, initially, when the bicycle was dashed, Pratap abused him with such words, whereas according to Chintaman, soon before the incident, Pratap brought a stick and such words were uttered by him. The FIR was submitted after three hours of the incident, whereas the place of incident was not much away from the police station. The FIR was lodged with a typed letter Ex.P/1 and it appears that it was drafted by some law knowing person therefore, the possibility cannot be ruled out that the complainant took the advantage of his caste and then, lodged the FIR. When the incident took place on the road then, independent witness could be obtained. However, Chintaman was an interested witness and therefore, it appears that no independent witness was taken by the prosecution in the case. Under these circumstances, it is not proved beyond doubt that the appellant Pratap insulted the complainant on the basis of his caste. The trial Court has committed an error in convicting the appellant no.1 Pratap for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Special Act.

Dayaram and Chintaman have stated that the appellant no.1 Pratap abused the victim with the filthy abuses relating to mother and sister but in the FIR Ex.P/1, no such words were specifically mentioned. When no such words specifically mentioned then, the Court has no opportunity to examine whether such words are obscene words or not. Secondly, such words are uttered without any obscene action so that it may be concluded that the appellant Pratap uttered obscene words. By abusing, any person can utter such words during quarrel with filthy abuses. Hence, no offence under Section 294 of the IPC may constitute. The trial Court has committed an error in convicting the appellant Pratap for the offence under Section 294 of the IPC.

So far as the offence under Section 323 of the IPC is concerned, it would be apparent that there was no enmity between the parties and Dr. M.K. Jain (PW-3), who examined the complainant soon after the incident did not find him to be dead drunk and therefore, the testimony of Dayaram and Chintaman can be accepted on this count due to corroboration of the medical evidence. Hence, it is proved beyond doubt that the appellant Pratap assaulted the victim Dayaram by a stick causing him simple injuries. Since the accident took place and a false allegation of negligence was made by the complainant upon the appellant Pratap, Pratap had no right of private defence to assault the victim. After one assault, he had knowledge of his overt act and thereafter, he gave two more assaults therefore, it is proved that the appellant Pratap had voluntarily caused hurt to the victim Dayaram. Dayaram and Chintaman have stated that when the appellant Pratap was beating the victim Dayaram, the accused Chandan has held the victim Dayaram and therefore, his common intention is very well established.

So far as the sentence is concerned, there was no previous enmity between the parties and due to accident of bicycle, such incident took place, it was not preplanned. The appellants were the first offender and the victim sustained minor injuries. The appellants have faced the trial and appeal for last 14 years and therefore, it would be appropriate that only fine may be imposed upon the appellants.

On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the present appeal filed by the appellants is hereby partly allowed. The conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court against the appellant no.1 Pratap for the offences under Section 294 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are hereby set aside. He is acquitted from the aforesaid charges. However, the conviction of the appellants for the offence under Section 323/34 of the IPC is hereby maintained. Their jail sentence is removed but their fine is increased from the sum of Rs.250/- to the sum of Rs.1,000/- for each of the appellant. Since the appellant no.1 has already deposited a sum of Rs.1750/- as fine therefore, he is not required to deposit the fine amount any more, whereas he would be entitled to get surplus fine amount back and the appellant no.2 shall deposit the remaining fine amount within one month from today failing which he shall undergo for one month R.I.

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

Copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court alongwith its record for information and compliance that if fine is not deposited within the stipulated period, then recovery be made as per provision of Section 68 of the IPC.