Deep Narayan Tiwari vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

This appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for Brevity ""Act, 1989""), has been

filed by the appellant/Deep Narayan Tiwari to assail the order dated 01/06/2018, passed by the Special Judge under the Act, 1989, Shahdol, whereby

charges have been framed under Sections 500, 385 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r) read with Section 3(2)(v-a) of the ""Act, 1989"" against the appellant.

On behalf of the appellant, it is contended that, the appellant earlier filed M.Cr.C. No.19615/17 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., whereby the same was

allowed on 14/11/2017 and the appellant has been exonerated for offences under Sections 305 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the ""Act, 1989"".

Subsequently, the learned trial Court framed charges for offences under Sections 500, 385 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r) and 3(2)(v-a) of the Act, 1989.

The appellant has challenged the same.

Bereft of the unnecessary details, the facts requisite for disposal of this appeal are that, on 27/7/13, the accused persons including the appellant/Deep

Narayan Tiwari, Bablu Choubey, Rajesh Dwivedi, Ram Narayan Pandey, Rakesh Gupta and Rajendra Pathak went to the father of the

deceased/Chokhelal Panika and asked him in presence of Poona Panika, Ram Prasad Bega, Chiddu Vishwakarma, Santram Panika that whether

there was any incident occurred with his daughter Chokhelal expressed his ignorance. The accused persons asked his daughter Seeta, whether she

was subjected to any such incident. Seeta denied of any such incident and asked them not to defame.

According to the prosecution story, the accused persons had gone to her school and asked the teacher about the incident, whether Rohit Morya had

committed rape with Seeta. The accused persons allegedly went to the parents of Rohit and asked for money. In January 2015, in the same incident,

Chokhelal was stopped by the accused persons while he was going to Jaisingh Nagar Police Station at Bus Stand Amjhor. The accused persons,

Chandrama Tiwari, Dewaker, Santosh Gupta, Sudhir Pandey and Bhuvan Tiwari stopped him and asked to sign some papers. When he did not sign

the same, they threatened him. On 27/7/13, Seeta committed suicide by jumping into the well. During the investigation, it was found that, no such

incident has ever happened with Seeta but, the accused persons had constantly asked about the same. Therefore, Seeta committed suicide as she was

defamed.

On behalf of the appellant, it is contended that, the appellant is innocent and is a practicing Advocate. It is contended that, FIR has been lodged after

more than 1 year. There is not an iota of evidence to demonstrate that, the appellant has extorted from the complainant. Even if, the preliminary

evidence is taken at its face value, no offence is made out against the appellant. Appellant/Deep Narayan Tiwari was not present, when the

complainant was asked at the bus stand to sign the papers. The appellant has never asked to anyone or the parents of Rohit to give any money. If the

prima facie evidence is considered, there was no intention to cause any defamation to Chokhelal or his daughter, Seeta. There was no intention to

cause any insult or intimidation to Chokhelal or Seeta in public view. The accused persons were making enquiry about an incident if has occurred. It is

also contended that, the accused has not caused any offence specified in the schedule against Chokhelal or his property, knowing that, he belongs to

scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. The statement of Rohit or his parents had not been recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.

It is also contended that, the incident took place allegedly in the year 2013. The amendment in the ""Act, 1989"" has been incorporated in the year 2016.

Therefore, the charges framed by the learned trial Court is also not in accordance with the law.

On behalf of the respondent/State, the application is vehemently opposed and it is contended that, the appellant is responsible along with the other

accused persons to commit the crime. Because of their query, the deceased/Seeta committed suicide, therefore, it is not a fit case for interference.

Heard the arguments and perused the record.

The essence of the offence of defamation consist that its defamatory to cause that, description of pain which is felt by person who knows himself to

be an object of an unfavourable sentiments of his fellow creature.

It is clear that, the intention to cause harm is the most essential sign qua non for an offence under Section 499 of IPC. The offence of defamation

consists of three essential ingredients, namely,

(i) making or publishing an imputation concerning a person;

(ii) such imputation must have been by words either spoken or intended to be read or by sign or by visible representation and,

(iii) the said imputation must have been made with the intention of harming or with the knowledge or having reason to believe that it will harm the

reputation of the person concerned.

In the present case, only querry was made by the accused persons including the appellant.

The wrong of 'defamation' is of two kinds namely, libel and slander. In 'liable', the defamatory statement is made in some permanent and visible form,

such as, writing, printing, pictures or effigies. In 'slander', it is made in spoken words or in some other transitory form, whether visible or audible, such

as, gestures or inarticulate but significant sounds.

In the present case, what words the appellant has spoken is not made clear. It is also to be seen that, prima facie the appellant has committed the

offence of slander is not established from the record.

So far as, the question of extortion is concerned, the evidence available in the record is very vague.

The essentials ingredients of Section 385 are:-

(i) That the accused put any person in fear or;

(ii) The accused attempted to put any person in fear, of any injury;

and

(iii) The accused did so in order to the committing of extortion. The fear or attempt to scare the victim was to cause some injury as understood in

Section 44 of IPC. There is no evidence with regard to the appellant extorting any money from Chokhelal or from Rohit or his parents.

The statement of Chokhelal under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. do not disclose any such demand of money by the appellant/Deep Narayan Tiwari.

As has been earlier stated, the appellant neither intended to insult or intimidate or humiliate the complainant/Chokhelal or Seeta for he or she being a

member of schedule caste or schedule tribe. The appellant along with the other accused persons had asked Chokhelal whether any such incident has

happened with his daughter Seeta. The element of causing insult, intimidate or humiliate the member of schedule caste or schedule tribe, any public

view has not occurred.

The statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. recorded before the learned JMFC, Shahdol on 22/01/15, do not include the name of the appellant/Deep

Narayn Tiwari. The complainant/Chokhelal in his statement has referred the name of Rajendra and 5-6 persons including one Lulu Pandey to whom

he knew. His statement does not disclose the name of the appellant, though he named some other accused persons in his statement who accompanied

Rajendra Pathak. On the second day, Rajendra Pathak came alone to Chokhelal and asked him to call Seeta and verify whether Rohit has done

anything bad with Seeta. When Seeta said nothing has happened, Rajendra left the place.

According to him, on 28/7/13, a phone from his son-in-law was received who wanted to speak to Seeta. When Seeta is not available, they started

searching for her. On 29/7/13, the school teacher informed him that, Seeta is not coming to school since yesterday. At about 4:30-5:00 pm, dead body

of Seeta was seen by Luvkesh Kushwaha, Paras Tiwari, Narayan and Harihar Sahu. They sent message through Mithun Yadav, that the dead body

of Seeta was floating in the well. Chokhelal further states that, Rajendra Pathak, Bablu Choubey, Lulu Pandey and other Patrakar (journalist) tried to

defame Seeta. When, he was going to submit the marksheet to the Police Station Jaisingh Nagar at bus stand Amjhor, the accused persons Sudhir

Pandey, Deewaker, Santosh Gupta and Chandrama met him and stopped him and wanted his signature in some papers but he did not sign the same.

In this background, it would be appropriate to state that, the appellant has not been named by the Chokhelal and his statement under Section 164 of

Cr.P.C. and there is no allegation to commit any offence to the person or property of Chokhelal by the appellant, hence offence under Sections 3(1)(r)

and 3(2)(v-a) of the Act, 1989 is prima facie not made out as against the appellant/Deep Narayan Tiwari.

The Court at the time of framing of charge has to consider the broad probability of the case and total effect of the material collected by the

prosecution. The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case. By and large, if two views are equally

possible and the Court is satisfied with the evidence produced giving rise a grave suspicion against the accused, the Court would be fully with in its

right to discharge the accused.

Thus, this appeal under Section 14-A of the Act, 1989 is allowed and the appellant/Deep Narayan Tiwari is discharged from offences under Sections

500, 385 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(2)(v-a) of the Act, 1989. His bail bonds are discharged.