Shripat Singh Thakur vs State Of Chhattisgar

The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.01.2003 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC & ST Act, Bastar at Jagdalpur (C.G.), in S.T. No. 292/2002 whereby, the learned Special Judge convicted the appellants and sentenced them as under :-

Conviction

Sentence

U/s 323/34 of IPC

R.I. for 6 months and fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for 1 month.

U/s 506(I) of IPC

R.I. for 1 years and fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for 3 months.

U/s 3(i)(10) of SC & ST Act (Special Act)

R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for 3 months.

Brief facts of the case are that complainant Ganraj Singh Netam, a member of Scheduled Caste, was posted at Aamabeda range as an Assistant Forest Ranger. On 02.10.2001, on the instructions of Forest Range Officer, Ganraj Singh Netam had gone at Range No. P/353 for checking along with forest guard Mardan Singh and forest Safety workers Duvaru Ram, Ramsay and Jhadu Ram and saw about 100 labourers were working for road construction by extracting soil within the forest areas. He stopped the work and came to the range office with the labourers and their equipment. Further, the case of prosecution is that at about 3:30 pm, the appellant/accused persons reached at Reserved Forest Range and shouted with filthy language on which the complainant said that he asked to stop the work as the alleged land is forest land, the accused Jitendra caught hold the hand of complainant Ganraj Singh Netam, used filthy language and assaulted to the complainant on his back of shoulder with the help of Tendu Stick. Forest guard Mandavi, Duvaru and Jhadu Ram intervened. Ganraj Singh Netam returned to the forest range and registered forest Crime No. 69879 dated 02.10.2001 and gave written report to the Range Officer on his return and also submitted the written report to J.M.F.C., Kanker. Thereafter, the Forest Range Officer sent the written report to Aamabeda police station, which was registered as Rojnamcha Sanha No. 70. The complainant was sent for medical examination and a medical report was given vide Ex.-P-4(A) by the doctor. On 16.10.2001, FIR was registered vide Ex.-P-3. During the course of the investigation, spot map was prepared vide Ex.-P-5. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellants.

So as to hold the accused/appellants guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 6 witnesses. The statement of the accused/appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. The appellants have adduced one witness in their defence.

After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment dated 14.01.2003, learned Special Judge has acquitted the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 186 and 332 of IPC and has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of the acquittal of the appellants under Sections 186 & 332 of IPC, the learned trial Court has gravely erred to convict the appellants under Sections 323, 506(I) of IPC and under Section 3(1)(10) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, such conviction is bad in law and procedure. He next submits that the learned trial Court has failed to treat the F.I.R. within time; while the court statement of PW-7 I.O. Shyam Sidar reveals the registration of FIR on 16.10.2001 and further PW-1 complainant Ganraj Singh Netam has revealed in his statement para 12 the distance of police station to be one furlong from his residence. Even the submission of written report at the police station on 03.10.2001 as per the statement of PW-1, itself shows the absolute delay in FIR and as such the learned trial Court ought to have held the delayed FIR was fatal for prosecution, and ought to have disbelieved the prosecution story based on such delayed FIR. Looking to the entire facts and circumstances and looking to the statement of DW-1 Raju, he submits that the lawful road construction work was going on to fulfil the requirement and need of the public, while the complainant PW-1 Ganraj Singh Netam himself unlawfully and without any lawful authority created hurdle to the works and lodged the false report against the appellants. Therefore, the appeal may be allowed and the appellants may be acquitted of the charges.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record including the impugned judgment.

On behalf of the prosecution, the examined witnesses, complainant Ganraj Singh Netam (PW-1), forest department watchman Ramsay (PW-2) and forest guard Premraj Mandavi (PW-3) have been stated as the witnesses of the incident. Whereas, Sub Inspector Shyam Sidar (PW-5) and Deputy Superintendent of Police Dashrath Dekate (PW-4) are the investigators of the case.

Doctor Sandeep Dwivedi (PW-6) conducted the medical examination of the complainant Ganraj Singh Netam (PW-1) on the second day of the incident i.e. on 03.10.2001 and gave his report vide Ex.-P-4A stating therein that there was a 3.5 x 2.5 inch abrasion on the right side of the back, which was caused about 18 to 22 hours ago with a hard and blunt object, which was of simple nature. In cross-examination, he admitted the suggestion of the Appellant's side that the said injury could have been caused by falling on a hard surface and no weapon or stick was sent to him for examination.

Before discussing the prosecution evidence, if we look at the defence of the appellants, he has said in his trial under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated. They have examined Rajuram (DW-1) as a defence witness who was working as a labourer in road construction along with other labourers at the time of the incident. Rajuram (DW-1) has stated that at around 04.00 pm the complainant Ganraj Singh Netam (PW-1) came there and asked the appellant Shripat Singh Thakur why are he building a road there. Thereafter, the appellant Shripat Singh Thakur said that he got the road constructed as per the orders of the Government. On this, the complainant Ganraj Singh Netam (PW-1) said to stop the work, then the appellant Shripat Singh Thakur said that if the complainant kept getting the work stopped, then he would go to the police station and lodged a report. This is what happened on the spot. There was no verbal abuse or physical assault on the complainant Ganraj Singh Netam. In this way, according to the argument of the appellant, the appellant Shripat Singh Thakur has said that he will report to the police station if the work is stopped, then the complainant has made this false report in his defence.

From the perusal of written reports Ex.-P/1 and Ex.-P/2 given by the witnesses examined on behalf of the parties and the complainant Ganraj Singh Netam (PW-1), it becomes undisputedly clear that Ratnibai, wife of the appellant Shripat Singh Thakur was the sarpanch of the village. On the spot, the construction of the village Amabeda to Kohchud road was going on, in which about 150 labourers were working. The complainant party has failed to establish that the said road construction work was not being done under the orders of the Government or was being done illegally in the forest area. The complainant Ganraj Singh Netam (PW-1) himself has admitted that he had not given any such document to the police that the area was in the protected forest area. In such a situation, the suggestion of the appellant side is becoming clear that the road construction work was going on there only under the orders of the Government.

The counsel for the appellants argues that the provisions of the 'Special Act' are not attractted in this case. It is notable that the complainant Ganraj Singh Netam (PW-1) has stated himself as a Gond tribal and the appellants have been stated as Rajput-Thakur, the fact which has also been affirmed by Chowkidar Ramsay (PW-2) and Forest Guard Premraj Mandavi (PW-3) of Forest Department. Simultaneously, Rajuram (DW-1) has also stated that the complainant Ganraj Singh Netam (PW-1) belonged to a tribal community while the appellants belonged to the Thakur community.

There is no credible evidence that the intention of the appellants was to insult the complainant by his caste. No caste certificate of complainant Ganraj Singh Netam (PW-1) has been produced. The witnesses of the spot, Ramsay (PW-2) of the Forest Department and Forest Guard Premraj Mandavi (PW-3), have clearly stated in their main examination that the appellants abused the complainant Ganraj Singh Netam by mentioning his caste but there is no mention of caste abuse in the police statements of both the witnesses vide Ex.- D-1 and Ex.- D-2 respectively.

The investigator, Sub Inspector Shyam Sidar (PW-5) has stated in his cross-examination that he was verbally told by the other investigator of the case, SDOP i.e. Deputy Superintendent of Police Dashrath Dekate (PW-4) that under the 'Special Act' crime is not being made out hence there has been a delay in the arrest. There is mention of the written report given by the complainant Ganraj Singh Netam (PW-1) to the Forest Range Officer on the date of the incident i.e. 02.10.2001 vide Ex.-P-1. But complainant Ganraj Singh Netam (PW-1) has also admitted that he had given the written complaint Ex.-P-2 in the name of Judicial Magistrate, Kanker, not in the court but in the police station. On the basis of the written complaint, the crime was registered by the police vide Ex.-P-3 after about 14 days on 16.10.2001. The arrest of the Appellants has been made vide Ex.-P-7 and Ex.-P-8 on 29.04.2002. Thus, there has been a delay in the registration of the crime and the arrest of the appellants. No explanation has been given for the delay in registration of the offence.

The statement of the investigator, Sub Inspector Shyam Sidar (PW-5) is that he was told by Deputy Superintendent of Police Dashrath Dekate (PW-4) that the offence of 'Special Act' was not being made out, hence there was a delay in the arrest. This shows that the matter has been prolonged and given a different form somewhere, whereas the reality remained something else. In such a situation, the statement of Rajuram (DW-1) cannot be ignored. On the basis of the above, it is found that the complainant Ganraj Singh Netam (PW-1) and Chowkidar Ramsay (PW-2) and Forest Guard Premraj Mandavi (PW-3) working in his department are not reliable beyond doubt and the case under 'Special Act' is not established beyond doubt.

So far as the fact of the complainant Ganraj Singh Netam being assaulted with a stick by holding hands and threatened to kill him is concerned, in this regard, watchman Ramsay (PW-2) and forest guard Premraj Mandavi (PW-3) who support his statement are personnel of his own forest department. The statements of these three witnesses have been recorded in the court on 10.10.2002 and in the cross-examination, they have admitted that they had come together to give their statement in the court. The counsel for the appellants argues that the appellants have been deliberately and falsely implicated by the forest workers. A total of 150 labourers have been stated to be present on the spot and no independent witness has been adduced in support of the complainant Ganraj Singh Netam (PW-1), but Rajuram was adduced as a defence witness out of those labourers as an independent witness. At this stage, the argument in favour of the appellants cannot be ignored.

According to the opinion of the doctor, complainant Ganraj Singh Netam (PW-1) sustained simple injury which could also have come from a fall. Police have registered the crime with a delay of about 14 days for which no satisfactory explanation has been given. The complainant Ganraj Singh Netam (PW-1) has not produced any document that shows that the construction of the road is going on there illegally, without the permission of the Government. He has stated to register POR (Forest Offence) against the appellants but he has not produced any copy of the same.

The complainant Ganraj Singh Netam (PW-1) has stated that the appellant Shripat Singh Thakur had abused him by saying 'गोंड़ मादरचोद कौन मेरा काम को मना कर रहा है’then, the appellant Jitendra Singh held his hand and Shripat Singh Thakur assaulted him on the back with a stick. Chowkidar Ramsay (PW-2) has stated that the appellant Shripat Singh Thakur abused the complainant Ganraj Singh Netam by saying 'मादरचोद गोंड़ तुम रोड़ का काम क्यों बंद किये’and assaulted him on the back with a stick. Ramsay (PW-2) does not state that the hand of the complainant Ganraj Singh Netam was held by the applicant Jitendra Thakur. Thus, there is a contradiction in the statements of complainant Ganraj Singh Netam and Chowkidar Ramsay (PW-2) regarding the actions of appellant Jitendra Thakur.

The third witness Forest Guard Premraj Mandavi (PW-3) has stated that the Appellant Shripat Singh Thakur had abused the complainant Ganraj Singh Netam as 'मादरचोर गोंडि या साले’and the Appellant Jitendra Thakur had held the hand of the complainant Ganraj Singh Netam. This witness, as per the prosecution case, does not state that complainant Ganraj Singh Netam was assaulted with a stick by appellant Shripat Singh Thakur. Thus, there is some contradiction in the statements of all three witnesses who are working in the same department. The stick allegedly used in the incident has also not been seized. The complainant Ganraj Singh Netam (PW-1) has admitted in cross-examination that even after the incident, he was going to his work and also went to the market etc. and after a week he also met the appellants. In such a situation, it does not appear that he had any fear from the appellants.

Considering the entire evidence and looking to the statements of the defence witness, the statement of the complainant Ganraj Singh Netam and his witnesses Chowkidar Ramsay (PW-2) and Forest Guard Premraj Mandavi (PW-3) are not found reliable beyond doubt that the Appellants have insulted by using caste-based abuses and have voluntarily threatened and caused harm by assaulting. Thus, the prosecution case against the appellants has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The benefit of doubt should be given to the appellants. In view of the above, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is not found sustainable.

Accordingly, the appeal of the appellants is accepted. The judgment of conviction and sentence in question is hereby set aside. Giving the benefit of doubt, the appellants are acquitted of the charges punishable under Sections 323/34 & 506(i) of IPC and Section 3(i)(10) of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. The appellants are reported to be on bail. Under Section 437/A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, their bail bonds will remain effective for another 6 months. If there is no need to appear in the higher court, the bail bonds are discharged. If any fine had been paid, it shall be returned to the appellants.

As above, the appeal is disposed of.

The record of the trial court along with the copy of this judgment be sent back immediately for necessary action and compliance.