Trilok Chandra @ Tillu vs State of Madhya Pradesh

N.K. Gupta, J.—The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 11.10.1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sihora in Special Case No. 63/1993, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable u/s 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter it will be referred as ''Special Act'') and sentenced for 6 months'' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for 3 months''. Prosecution''s case, in short, is that, on 5.10.1993, at about 7 p.m. in the evening, the complainant Ananta Prasad Choudhari (P.W. 1) was chatting with one Kandhi Lal on a Pan shop, near Bus Stand Majholi, Police Station Majholi, District Jabalpur. The complainant and Kandhi Lal were talking about the activities of their society. At that time, the appellant came to the spot and he told the complainant "Abey Chamra jyada na uda kar" and so many things relating to the caste of the complainant. The complainant was insulted in the public. Ramkesh (P.W. 3) was also present there, who saw and hear the incident. The complainant went to the Police Station Majholi and lodged an FIR, Ex.P/1. A case was registered and after due investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the Special Judge, Jabalpur. Case was transferred to the Additional Sessions Judge, Sihora, being a Special Judge.

The appellant abjured his guilt. He took a plea that a vehicle was demanded by the complainant from the appellant for a rally of Bahujan Samaj Party and since it was not given to the complainant, a false case was lodged against the appellant. In defence, one Kandhi Lal Sahu (D.W. 1) was examined and the appellant examined himself on oath.

On considering the evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sihora convicted the appellant for the offence punishable u/s 3 (1) (x) of the Special Act and sentenced him as mentioned above.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the relatives of the complainant were dismissed from their job in the industry of the appellant and the appellant did not gave his vehicle to the complainant and therefore, a false case was lodged against the appellant. The complainant shown the presence of the witness Kandhi Lal but, Kandhi Lal was not examined as a prosecution witness and therefore, he was examined as a defence witness, who told about the truth and therefore, the appellant was falsely implicated. It is also submitted that the cases of the Special Act would have been tried by the Special Court, whereas judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sihora appears to be beyond jurisdiction and therefore, the conviction and sentence directed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge cannot be sustained.

On the contrary, learned Panel Lawyer has submitted that the conviction and sentence directed by the trial Court appears to be correct and there is no basis by which any alteration can be done in the conclusions drawn by the trial Court.

After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is to be considered as to whether the appeal filed by the appellant can be accepted? And whether the case was not tried by the competent Court?

If the order-sheets of the trial Court are perused then, it would be clear that initially it was mentioned in the prior order-sheets that the case was dealt by Special Judge at Jabalpur and thereafter, it was transferred to the Additional Sessions Judge, Sihora. According to the notification directed by the Government, the entire Sessions Court was notified as the Special Court for the Special Act and therefore, all the Additional Sessions Judges along with the Sessions Judge had the powers of the Special Judge for the Special Act. The present point was dealt by Hon''ble the Division Bench of this Court in case of Bar Association Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, , in which it was held that the Government of Madhya Pradesh had notified the Sessions Court as Special Court and therefore, the Sessions Judge and all Additional Sessions Judges are empowered to deal with the Special cases of the Special Act and therefore, if the case was dealt by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sihora then, he has done within his jurisdiction. Objection raised by the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted on the point of jurisdiction of the trial Court.

Ananta Prasad (P.W. 1), Prakash (P.W.2) and Ramkesh (P.W. 3) have stated about the incident, which took place at a pan shop. According to the FIR, initially Ananta Prasad was talking with one Kandhi Lal but, Kandhi Lal was not examined because he was Sahu by caste and the appellant was also Sahu. Ultimately, Kandhi Lal was examined by the defence and he supported the defence version. The appellant took a defence that one Sitaram and Munna, relatives of the complainant were working in the oil mill of the appellant and they were dismissed from their job and therefore, there was an enmity of the complainant with the appellant. Secondly, the complainant demanded a jeep from the appellant to attend the rally of Bahujan Samaj Party and when the appellant refused to provide the jeep, a false case has been lodged against him.

If version stated by the complainant Ananta Prasad in his statement before the Court and in his FIR is perused then, it would be apparent that there was no need to the appellant to say something to the complainant at Pan shop. Status of the complainant was not such, so that some talk could have taken place between the complainant and the appellant. Story narrated by the complainant appears to be unnatural. It was not possible for a stranger to go to a Pan shop and to abuse the complainant in such a manner without any reason, where the accused was the owner of an oil mill. The complainant mentioned 3 types of insults in the FIR. Firstly, that the appellant told him "Abey Chamra jyada na uda kar", secondly, he also told "Tumhari Ladki Chodte aaye hai aur chodte jayenge" and lastly, after completion of the FIR, the complainant again added one sentence that if the complainant or his companions went to some hotel then, the appellant would assault him by a sword. If the statements of witnesses Prakash and Ramkesh are perused then, it would be clear that they were tutored by the FIR and therefore, out of these three allegations, the witnesses adopted one or two allegations from the FIR.

There is no allegation made by the prosecution evidence that the appellant was running any hotel and therefore, there was no possibility to give a threat by the appellant that if the complainant or his companions, go to a hotel then, the appellant would assault him by a sword. Under such circumstances, where Ramkesh has admitted before the trial Court that in Majholi township, various hotels were not providing snacks to the persons of his caste. Under such circumstances, it appears that a common grievance of the caste fellows of the complainant was alleged against the appellant unnecessarily. When they were not provided any snacks by various hotels then, there was nothing to do by the appellant and therefore, there was no possibility for the appellant to give such a threat. Similarly, it was no where mentioned in the FIR that Prakash (P.W.2) was present at the time of the incident and therefore, it appears that he is a cooked witness. Prakash did not say that the appellant told the complainant about the daughters of that particular caste. If he was present at the spot then, he should have observed the entire incident in the same manner as it was observed by the complainant. Under such circumstances, looking to the contradictions in the statements of Ananta Prasad and Prakash, it appears that Prakash was not an eye witness. He is a tutored witness. Similarly, Ramkesh (P.W. 3) did not say about the rape upon the daughters of community of the complainant. If he was present then, he should know about the allegations made by the complainant. Under such circumstances, it appears that no such incident took place with the complainant and with the help of the witnesses Prakash and Ramkesh, the complainant prepared a false case against the appellant. Under such circumstances, if depositions of defence witnesses are perused then, it would be clear that since the appellant did not provide the jeep to the complainant to attend the rally of Bahujan Samaj Party therefore, a false report was lodged by the complainant Ananta Prasad, otherwise there was no possibility for the appellant to go and to quarrel with the complainant in such a manner without any reason and if such incident had taken place then, there must be uniformity in the statements of various witnesses.

On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not trustworthy. A doubt is created that no such incident took place with the complainant. If any doubt is created then, benefit of doubt is to be given to the accused and therefore, the appellant could not be convicted for the offence punishable u/s 3 (1) (x) of the Special Act. Learned Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge) has erred in convicting the appellant for the aforesaid offence. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant is hereby allowed. The conviction as well as sentence directed by the trial Court for the offence punishable u/s 3 (1) (x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted from all the charges. The appellant would be entitled to get the fine amount back, if he has deposited the same before the trial Court.

The appellant is on bail. His Presence is no more required before this Court and therefore, it is directed that his bail bonds shall stand discharged. A copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court with its record for information and compliance.