Sharad Kachhi vs State of M.P.

A.K. Shrivastava, J.—This appeal has been preferred by the appellant u/s 374(2), Cr.PC, 1973 against the judgment of his conviction and

order of sentence dated 10-8-94 passed by the Special Judge, Panna in Special Case No. 86/92 convicting the appellant under Sections 3(1)(x)

and 3(1)(xiv) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short ''the Act'') and sentencing him to suffer

rigorous imprisonment of six months and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine amount, further simple imprisonment of one month under

each offence.

In brief the case of prosecution is that on 1-10-92 at 5.30 p.m. complainant released his oxen and they entered in the field of one Marua

Choudhary, which is given to appellant on crop share basis (Adh Batai) as a result of which some hot talk took place between the complainant and

accused-appellant. As per the case of prosecution, appellant hurled abuses of mother and daughter. The complainant pecified and refrained him

from hurling the abuses, as result of which appellant by holding a lathi ran towards him. The complainant was running away, however the appellant

restrained him as a result of which complainant could not go to his house. The appellant also gave lathi blow to him which landed on his hand. The

complainant lodged a report on the next day, i.e., on 2-10-92. A case was registered against the appellant and after investigation a charge-sheet

was submitted.

The Special Court framed charges under Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xiv) of the Act. Needless to emphasis, appellant abjured his guilt and

pleaded complete innocence.

In order to bring home charges, prosecution examined as many as 6 witnesses and placed Ex. P-l to P-6, the documents on record. The

defence of accused is of false implication and in his defence he examined two witnesses, namely, Khushiram (D.W. 1) and Mahesh Prasad (D.W.

2).

The Trial Court on the basis of evidence placed on record came to hold that the charges are proved and eventually convicted the appellant and

passed the sentences which I have mentioned hereinabove. Hence this appeal.

In this appeal, Shri R.S. Tiwari, learned Counsel for appellant has submitted that if the evidence of complainant Phagua (P.W. 2) is tested on the

touchstone of Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xiv) of the Act it would reveal that no offence is proved and, therefore, the Special Court erred in law in

convicting the accused-appellant.

Shri Arun Nema, learned Counsel appearing for respondent argued in support of the impugned judgment.

After having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view, that this appeal deserves to be allowed.

Complainant Phagua has been examined as P.W. 2. On going through his testimony in its entirety, it is revealed that he warded off his oxen in

the field of accused-appellant, as a result of which some hot talk took place between him and the complainant though it has come in the evidence

that appellant hurled abuses and also denoted him by saying ''Chamra''. Merely because word ''Chamra'' has been used would not mean that it was

used in order to intentionally insult or intimidate with intent to humiliate the complainant who belongs to a Scheduled Caste community. There is no

evidence of the complainant in that regard that in order to insult him he was addressed by naming his caste ''Chamar''. According to me merely

because the appellant has denoted him by his caste ''Chamar'', would not arrest the provision of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. So far as his conviction

u/s 3(1)(xiv) of the Act is concerned, there is no evidence of complainant that appellant restrained him any customary right of passage to a place of

public resort or obstructed him being the member of Scheduled Caste community. Since there is no evidence to this effect of the complainant,

according to me, the conviction u/s 3(1)(xiv) of the Act can not be sustained.

Though it has come in the evidence of complainant Phagua (P.W. 2) that certain abusive language was used by the appellant which caused

annoyance to him, but there is no corroboration to the statement of the complainant in this regard.

In view of above, according to me, the Court below erred in convicting the appellant. The judgment of conviction is accordingly set aside.

The appeal is allowed. Conviction of appellant is set aside. He is on bail. His bail-bonds are discharged. The amount of fine, if deposited, be

refunded to the appellant.