State of Madhya Pradesh vs Sadhu and Others

N.K. Gupta, J.—The State has preferred the present appeal being aggrieved with the judgment of acquittal dated 11.11.1998 passed by the Special Judge for SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Panna in Special Case No. 61 of 1997 whereby, the respondents no.1 to 4 have been acquitted from the charge of Section 3(1)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter it would be referred as a "Special Act") and Section 323 read with Section 34 of I.P.C.

Facts of the case in short are that on 14.11.1995 the complainant Ramashraya (PW5) and his companion Buddhu (PW7) were coming from their fields to their house then the respondents restrained them in the way that they could not go through that way because of their caste. Thereafter, they assaulted these two persons by sticks causing injuries to them. They had also threatened the victims. Ramashraya had lodged an FIR Ex.P/6 at Police Station AJK, Panna. The injured persons were sent for their medico legal examination to District Hospital, Panna. Dr. Vijay Parmar (PW1) had examined Buddhu and Ramshre and gave his report Exs. P/1 and P/2 respectively. According to Dr. Parmar, Buddhu sustained two rail marks on his back caused by hard and blunt object like stick whereas, Ramashraya sustained a contusion on his right thumb. After due investigation a charge sheet was filed and trial was initiated.

The respondents abjured their guilt. They took a plea that there was no way for the complainant and his companion to pass through. There was no public way from where they were going. On the contrary the complainant and his companion have assaulted the respondents and thereafter, they have lodged a false FIR in the matter. However, no defence evidence was adduced.

The trial Court after considering the evidence adduced by the parties acquitted the respondents from the aforesaid charges.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.

Mahesh (PW2), Ramashraya (PW5), Buddhu (PW7), Kishora (PW8) have stated that they were coming back from their field through a way situated near the field of Bhaiyaram and Raja etc. then the respondents detained them and assaulted by sticks causing injuries. The charge of offence under Section 3(1)(v) of the Special Act was framed and therefore, it was for the prosecution to prove that there was a right of way to the complainant and he was deprived with the right because of his caste. In this context Buddhu has accepted in para 7 of his cross examination that the complainant and witnesses have been allotted some houses in Indira Awas Yoyana on a land which was of Government. He has accepted that they were going out of their house complex from a way which was adjacent to the field of one Prabhu. Prabhu denied their right of way and therefore, on their application the Tahsildar directed to open the way. In the present incident, it was for the complainant and his witnesses to establish that they had a right of way declared by a competent Tahsildar to pass through that place from where they were visiting on that particular day. According to the spot map Ex.P/3, the place of incident is not near the field of Prabhu. They were bypassing through a way where there was field of Bhaiyaram, Raja and Kallu. It was also specified in the spot map Ex.P/3 that a place shown by numerical 1, was the place of incident which was a mendh between the fields of Kallu and Bhaiyaram.

A Revenue Court cannot provide any right of way to any person to pass through a mendh between two fields. The witness Buddhu has accepted that they were going through that way because it was shorter. Under these circumstances, it would be apparent that the prosecution could not prove that the complainant had a right of way to pass from the place of incident or they did not have any alternate way or the respondents assaulted them to prohibit them to go through that way because of their caste and therefore, the trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents from the charge of Section 3(1)(v) of the Special Act.

Buddhu and Ramashraya have stated that the respondents assaulted them brutally by lathis and they sustained injuries. However, victim Buddhu sustained only two injuries and Ramashraya sustained only a single injury on his thumb. If four persons had assaulted the victims then they would have sustained so many injuries. In this context the evidence given by the Head Constable Ramcharan (PW6) is important. He has stated that Ramashraya went to the Police Station all alone and he gave a written report Ex.P/5. On the basis of that report, a case was registered with the FIR Ex.P/6. The incident took place at about 8.00 a.m in the morning whereas, report was lodged at about 6.45 p.m. There was no reason shown by Ramashraya relating to delay caused in lodging the FIR. It appears that the FIR has been lodged with delay of at least 5-6 hours.

Ramashraya (PW5) has accepted that a criminal trial was pending against him and co-accused Buddhu, Kishore, Bhagwatdeen etc. before the JMFC, Ajaygarh with the allegation that they assaulted the respondent Bhaiyaram and Prabhu. He has further accepted that he was convicted in that trial. It is also apparent that the complainant and his companions were the resident of a place which was in the territory of Police Station, Ajaygarh and Ramashraya did not visit to the Police Station, Ajaygarh to lodge an FIR because one FIR was already lodged by the respondents against him at Police Station, Ajaygarh and there was possibility that if he would have visited the Police Station, Ajaygarh then he would have been arrested and therefore, to defeat the FIR lodged by the respondents a case was lodged at Police Station AJK, Panna with delay of 5-6 hours.

If the admission of Ramashraya is considered that for the same incident there was an allegation against Ramashraya and Buddhu that they assaulted the respondents Prabu and others and they were convicted in that case then certainly possibility cannot be ruled out that complainant and his companions were the aggressors. The incident took place near the field of the respondents and therefore, they were very much present at the spot from the beginning. They did not know that the complainant and his companions shall visit and assault them. If the intention of the complainant was not to assault the respondents then they would not have taken sticks in their hands. Under these circumstances, the trial Court has rightly found that the complainant and his companion were the aggressors and if they had established that they sustained some injuries in the incident then such injuries were caused by some of the respondents in their right of private defence and therefore, the trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents from the charge of Section 323 read with Section 34 of I.P.C.

On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, there is no basis to convict the respondents of offence under Section 3(1)(v) of the Special Act or Section 323 of I.P.C directly or with the help of Section 34 of I.P.C. There is no substance in the State appeal and therefore, it cannot be accepted. Consequently, the appeal against the judgment of acquittal filed by the State is hereby dismissed.

Copy of the judgment be sent to the Court below along with its record for information.