Smt. Girijabai vs Chhuttu @ Ajendra Singh Rajput

N.K. Gupta, J.—The appellant has preferred the present appeal u/s 372 of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment of acquittal dated 3.1.2013 passed by learned Special Judge under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Narsinghpur in Special Case No. 47/2011 whereby the respondents no. 1, 2 and 3 were acquitted from the charges of Sections 294, 323 read with Section 34 (two counts), 506 (Part II) of I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Special Act'').

The facts of the case in short are that on 4.3.2011 at about 8.00 a.m., the respondents no. 1, 2 and 3 abused the victim Girija Bai and Kamla Bai with obscene words as well as the words relating to their caste. Thereafter, they assaulted them by kicks and fists and also dragged them causing injuries to the victims Girijabai and Kamla Bai. The appellant Girijabai had lodged an FIR Ex. P/2 at Police Station Gotegaon, District Narsinghpur on the same very day. After due investigation, the charge sheet was filed before the concerned Magistrate and it was committed to the Special Court.

The respondents no. 1, 2 and 3 abjured their guilt. They took the plea that they were falsely implicated in the matter. Some amount was given to the husband of Girijabai to do some job of labourer but, neither he had done the job nor he had returned the amount and therefore, to create a pressure, a false case had been registered against the respondents. However, no defence evidence was adduced.

After considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution the learned Special Judge acquitted the respondents no. 1, 2 and 3 from all the charges.

After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the evidence of the prosecution led before the trial Court, it appears that the victims Kamla Bai (PW2) and Girijabai (PW3) did not say anything about the obscene words told by the respondents no. 1, 2 and 3. If some abuses are made by the respondents then without telling the exact words, it cannot be said that the words told by the accused persons were the obscene words. Girijabai (PW3) has stated that the respondents told the words but, it was not confirmed by the other victim Kamla Bai (PW2). Under such circumstances, the prosecution failed to prove that the respondents no. 1, 2 and 3 told any obscene words at a public place and the trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents for offence u/s 294 of I.P.C.

After considering the evidence given by Premlal (PW1), Kamla Bai (PW2), Girijabai (PW3), Leelawati (PW4) and Raghvendra (PW5), it appears that omnibus allegations were made by the witnesses against the respondents. The victim has proved the FIR Ex. P/2, which was lodged with delay of at least nine hours. No specific reason has been shown for that delay. The witness Raghvendra (PW5) has accepted in para 4 of his statement that the accused persons were demanding money back from his father. They thought to register a case against the accused persons and then after that case was prepared. Looking to such statement of Raghvendra, the evidence of such witnesses should be examined in a strict manner. Delay in FIR indicates that the respondents could be falsely implicated by the complainants. Kamla Bai (PW2) has stated that the accused persons assaulted to her in a brutal manner. She was given slaps on her ear and a stroke of stick was given on her back. In that respect if the statement of Dr. S.S. Thakur (PW11) is examined then Dr. Thakur examined the victim Kamla Bai and gave his report Ex. P/5. In that report, no injury was found on the ear and back of the victim Kamla Bai. He had found an abrasion on left arm of the victim Kamla Bai and an abrasion on right leg but, the victim Kamla Bai did not allege against any of the accused persons that they assaulted her on her arm and therefore, there is no question about the injury caused on the arm of Kamla Bai. Similarly Girijabai (PW3) has stated that she was beaten brutally and in para 5 of her cross examination, she has stated that Laxman Singh assaulted by kicks on her chest. She did not say about any other assault in the incident whereas, Dr. Thakur (PW11) found a contusion on her left thigh and an abrasion on her right forearm. No injury was either complained to Dr. Thakur on chest of this victim or doctor found any injury on the chest of the victim Girijabai. Under such circumstances, looking to the contradictions in the statements of Kamla Bai and Girijabai along with the medical report Exs. P/4 and P/5 given by the doctor, it appears that the injuries caused to Kamla Bai and Girijabai were due to any other reason and due to such injuries a false case has been lodged against the respondents no. 1, 2 and 3. Consequently, it would be apparent that the trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents from the charge of section 323 read with Section 34 (two counts) of I.P.C. Girijabai and Kamla Bai did not say anything about the threat given by the respondents and therefore, the respondents could not be convicted for offence punishable u/s 506 (Part II) of I.P.C. The trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents from the charge of Section 506 (Part II) of I.P.C.

So far as the offence u/s 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, is concerned the learned counsel for the appellant has invited the attention of this Court to the judgment passed by Hon''ble the Apex Court in the case of Swaran Singh and Others Vs. State through Standing Counsel and Another, that if someone is abused with the name of his caste then the meaning of that word should be taken into the account and it is a word which may cause insult to that person. However, as mentioned above, that Raghvendra (PW5) has accepted that they were intended to implicate the respondents in the matter and therefore, every eye witness who, was interested witness told the story according to his own choice. The witnesses Premlal, Leelawati etc. have said in an omnibus manner that the respondents were in habit to abuse them on the basis of their name of the caste. The omnibus allegations made by Leelawati and Premlal has no value because the FIR was lodged for a particular incident and therefore, facts of that incident should be proved. Leelawati did not say about the abuses told by the respondents at the time of the incident. Girijabai has stated that the respondents asked her and started assaulting whereas, no such words were mentioned in the FIR Ex. P/1. It was not mentioned in the FIR that the respondents abused her on the basis of the caste when she went to the house of the respondents. On the contrary, she mentioned in the FIR that she was told with such words with the threat that if she lodges an FIR then she should understand her fate. With such words, she had mention the word relating to her caste, spoken by the respondents. At this stage when Girijabai was examined by the trial Court, neither she said about the threat nor the words uttered by the respondents at the time of the threat. On the contrary Kamla Bai who was the interested witness did not say anything about the words spoken by the respondents no. 2 and 3 that they abused them on the basis of the caste and therefore, the testimony of the victim Girija Bai cannot be believed. The material contradiction is visible from her statement and the text of the FIR. Under such circumstances, it is not proved by the prosecution that the respondents had spoken any of the words relating to the caste of the victims.

For consideration of offence u/s 3(1)(x) of the Special Act, it should be proved that an insult has been done on the basis of the caste. Looking to the evidence given by Raghvendra (PW5), it would be apparent that the victims and their family members desired that the respondents should not demand the money given to them in doing some work and therefore, an FIR was lodged. Looking to the conduct of the victims and the material contradictions in their medical report, prima facie it appears that a false case been lodged against the respondents no. 1, 2 and 3 and therefore the learned Special Judge has rightly acquitted them from the charge of offence u/s 3(1)(x) of the Special Act.

After considering the aforesaid discussion, it would be apparent that there is no substance in the appeal filed by the appellant. Consequently, the application u/s 372 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the appellant Girijabai is hereby dismissed.

Copy of the order be sent to the trial Court along with its record for information.