Ram Chandra And Ors vs State Of Chhattisgarh

@JUDGMENT-JUDGMENT

This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.06.2002 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Bastar at Jagdalpur (C.G.) in Sessions

Conviction

Sentence

Under Section 294 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC')

R.I. for one month

Under Section 323 read with Section 34 of IPC

R.I. for nine months and pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment to further undergo additional R.I. for one month.

Under Section 506 Part-I of IPC

R.I. for nine months and pay a fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment to further undergo additional R.I. for one month.

Under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'Special Act')

R.I. for one year and pay a fine of Rs.300/-, in default of payment to further undergo additional R.I. for one month.

All the sentenced to run concurrently

In present appeal, as per order dated 16.12.2015, appellant Ram Chandra  (A-1) has died during the pendency of this appeal, therefore, the appeal filed on behalf of appellant Ram Chandra (A-1) has been dismissed as abated by this Court.

Facts of the case in brief are that complainant Shyam Lal Munda belongs to scheduled tribe community and resident of village Potanar. On the date of incident i.e. on 13.12.2001 at about 05:30 pm, he went to Bhag market for purchasing buffalo. In the market, there was bargaining for purchasing buffalo between the complainant and the accused (Ram Chandra- A-1), the complainant was demanding buffalo for a consideration of Rs.2,300/-, then Ram Chandra (A-1) told the complainant by uttering 'arey maadarchod munda aadiwasi 2300 rupiye mein bhais milta hai'. Thereafter, all the appellants assaulted the complainant saying that 'maaro maadarchod mund aadiwasi ko' and abusing by his caste. On the same day, the complainant made a written complaint to Special Police Station- A.Ja.K., Jagdalpur, Bastar vide Ex.-P/2. FIR (Ex.-P/3) was also lodged by complainant Shyam Lal (PW-2) in the same police station against all the above appellants. Shyam Lal (PW-2) was sent for medical examination to Maharani Hospital, Jagdalpur, where he (PW-2) was examined by Dr. R.B.P. Gupta (PW-7) and he gave MLC report (Ex.-P/4-A). Doctor found five abrasions on the body of Shyam Lal (PW-2).

During investigation, spot map (Ex.-P/5) was prepared. All the accused/appellants were arrested on 04.01.2002 vide arrest memos Ex.-P/6, Cr.A. No. 648 of 2002 Ex.-P/7, Ex.-P/8 & Ex.-P/9.

After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed by the police for the offence under Sections 294, 323 & 506 of IPC, read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Special Act against all the accused/appellants. While framing the charge, the Special Judge,SC/ST Act, Bastar at Jagdalpur (C.G.) framed the charge against all the accused/appellants under Sections 294, 323/34 & 506 Part-II of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Special Act.

So as to hold the accused/appellants guilty, the prosecution examined 07 witnesses namely Bhanmati (PW-1), Shyam Lal (PW-2), Maahri Bai (PW-3), Ledaram (PW-4), F.J. Minj (PW-5), D.S. Uikey (PW-6) and Dr. R.B.P. Gupa (PW-7) in support of its case. Statements of all the accused/Appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication and they prayed for trial. The accused/appellants examined Ghanshyam Thakur as DW-1 and Sukman as DW-2 in support of their defence.

After appreciation of the evidence available on record, the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Bastar at Jagdalpur (C.G.) by the impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced all the accused/appellants as mentioned in para- 1 of this judgment, hence this appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellants submit that in this case, caste certificate (Ex.-P/1) issued by PW-1 Bhanmati, village Sarpanch, in favour of Shyam Lal (PW-2) is not according to law and she is not an authority to issue such caste certificate. She submits that PW-1 has admitted in her cross examination that she does not know the caste of PW-2, therefore, the caste of PW-2 was not proved by the prosecution. She further submits that the dispute arose between the complainant (PW-2) and Ram Chandra (A-1) due to bargaining for purchase of buffalo and only 4-5 abrasions were found on the body of the complainant. She also submits that Ram Chandra (A-1) had Cr.A. No. 648 of 2002 filed an application before Sarpanch, Village Panchyat, Potanar regarding dispute between him and the complainant (PW-2) and that fact is proved by Ghanshyam Thakur (DW-1), in which, there was no dispute regarding caste of the complainant. Therefore, the Special Court has wrongly convicted and sentenced the appellants for the offence under Sections 294, & 506 Part-I of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Special Act. Alternatively, She submits that the complainant sustained simple injuries on his body and if this Court finally comes to conclusion that the appellants have rightly been convicted by the Special Court for the offence under Section 323/34, considering the fact that the appellants are the first offenders, the incident took place around 19 years ago, there are no criminal antecedents of the appellants, they may be given the benefit of Probation of Offender Act.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supports the impugned judgment and submits that definitely, Ex.-P/1, caste certificate of the complainant was issued by PW-1 Bhanmati who is not authorized to issue such caste certificate, but in a village, Sarpanch knows the caste of every persons of the village, therefore, the Special Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Special Act. He further submits that the injuries sustained by the complainant stand corroborated by the MLC report (Ex.-P/4-A) and his evidence as also the evidence of Dr. R.B.P. Gupta (PW-7), therefore, the Special Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants under Sections 294, 506 Part-I & 323/34 of IPC and the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants by the Special Court needs no interference by this Court.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the records of the Special Court.

True it is that Ex.-P/1 (caste certificate) was issued by village Sarpanch Bhanmati (PW-1), but she admitted in para-3 of her cross-examination that she was not aware as to in which category or community munda caste falls.

Cr.A. No. 648 of 2002 Further, PW-1 is not an authority to issue such caste certificate in favour of the complainant (PW-2). In the present case, the dispute arose between the complainant (PW-2) and Ram Chandra (A-1) only over purchase of buffalo where all the appellants assaulted PW-2 Shyam Lal and there was no dispute between them over the caste of PW-2. In this case, no caste certificate of PW-2 Shyam Lal issued by Sub-Divisional Magistrate or Tehsildar was produced before the Special Court. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove the caste of PW-2 as required under the law.

PW-2 Shyam Lal has stated that on the fateful day, he went to market for purchasing buffalo where he told that he will give Rs.23,00/- for one buffalo, on this, Ram Chandra (A-1) told PW-2 that 'bhosidi ke saale aadiwasi munda', I (A-1) am demanding Rs.3,000/- and you (PW-2) are giving Rs.2,300/- for buffalo. Then, all the appellants assaulted PW-2.

Looking to the statement of Shyam Lal (PW-2), the allegation made against accused- Ram Chandra (A-1) is that Ram Chandra said that 'bhosidi ke saale aadiwasi munda', but accused Ram Chandra (A-1) has died during the pendency of this appeal, therefore, the appeal filed on behalf of Ram Chandra (A-1) has been abated. Regarding other accused/appellants namely Durjan (A-2), Suder (A-3) and Smt. Jamwati (A-4), omnibus statement made by the complainant (PW-2) against them that the accused persons said that 'bhosidi ke saale aadiwasi munda'. However, there is no specific evidence as to which of the accused made utterance of these words. Further, no any threats to cause death or grievous hurt was given by the present appellants (A-2, A-3 & A-4) to the complainant (PW-2). Only it had come in the evidence of Shyam Lal (PW-2), Maahri Bai (PW-3) and Ledaram (PW-4) that the appellants (A-2, A-3 & A-4) assaulted Shyam Lal (PW-2) as a result of which PW-2 received five abrasions and according to the MLC report (Ex.-P/4-A), he sustained simple injuries. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the Cr.A. No. 648 of 2002 main ingredients for the offence under Sections 294 & 506 Part-I of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Special Act have not been proved by the prosecution as required under the law,. But, the offence under Section 323/34 of IPC was duly proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt.

Thus, in view of the aforesaid factual and legal position, this Court is of the considered opinion that the conviction of the accused/appellants (A-2, A-3 & A-4) under Sections 294 & 506 Part-I of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Special Act is not sustainable in the eye of law. However, as the appellants (A-2, A-3 & A-4) had assaulted Shyam Lal (PW-2) and caused him simple injuries, of course they are liable to be convicted under Section 323/34 of IPC and the Special Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 323 read with Section 34 of IPC.

As regard the sentence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that over trivial issue of bargaining for purchasing buffalo dispute arose between the appellants and PW-2 in which PW-2 sustained simple injuries, the appellants were the first offenders, they have no criminal antecedents and are on bail, the incident took place around 19 years back, keeping in view the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of George Pon Paul Vs. Kanagalet and Others, (2009) 13 SCC 478 wherein considering the fact that fine amount has been deposited and paid to the victim as also the long passage of time, the accused was sentenced to the period already undergone, this Court is of the opinion that in the present case also no useful purpose would be served in sending the appellant back to jail at this stage and the ends of justice would be served if they are sentenced to fine of Rs.1,000/- in place of Rs.500/- imposed by the Special Court with default sentence of three months R.I.

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants (A-2, A-3 & A-4) by the Special Court under Sections 294 & 506 Part-I of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Special Act are Cr.A. No. 648 of 2002 set aside and they are acquitted of the said charges framed against them. While setting aside the jail sentence awarded to these appellants by the Special Court under Section 323/34 of IPC, they are sentenced to fine of Rs.1,000/- each. If the fine amount imposed upon the appellants by the Special Court has already been deposited, it shall be adjusted accordingly. Let the enhanced sum be deposited in the Special Court failing which each of the appellants shall be liable to remain in jail for a period of three months. Out of total fine amount of Rs.3,000/-, Rs.1,500/- shall be payable to the complainant (PW-2) as compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C. by the Special Court after due verification. The appellants are reported to be on bail, therefore, their bail bonds shall remain in force of a period of six months from today in view of the provisions of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.