Govindsingh, Jagannath, Umrao and Mohan Singh vs State of M.P.

Hon''ble Mrs. Justice S.R. Waghmare

This is the appeal of the year 1998 has been filed u/s 374 of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment dated 05.01.98 passed by Special Judge, Shajapur in Special Case No. 103/96 whereby the appellants were convicted for offence punishable u/S. 426 of the IPC read with Section 3(1)(5) of the SC/ST Act and sentenced to 6 months rigorous imprisonment each with fine of Rs. 300/- each, in case of default of payment of fine they were to undergo additional one month''s rigorous imprisonment each. Brief facts necessary for elucidation are that complainant Narayansingh was going to work in his field at that time accused appellants were grazing their cattle in the field of complainant. When complainant objected to the same, the appellants abused by indicating his caste and threatened the complainant on the point of wooden stick and axe. Upon the complaint of the complainant case was registered against the appellants. After framing of charge and recording of evidence, appellants were convicted as stated above, against which the present appeal has been filed.

Learned Counsel for the appellants has vehemently urged the fact that it was a case of false implication. Even if the prosecution allegations are considered she stated that the dispute arose due to grazing of cattle and ingredients of offence u/s 3(1)(5) of the SC/ST Act was not fulfilled. Counsel placed reliance on Tulsiram & others Vs. State [2007 Part-II M.P.W. N. S.N.70] and submits that merely calling by his community would not amount for hurling of abuse as defined u/s 3(1)(5) of the SC/ST Act. Moreover Counsel sated that there were material omissions and discrepancies in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses P.W. 1 Pyarsingh, P.W. 2 Ramlal, P.W. 3 Bhanwarsingh and the prosecution case was entirely demolished in this regard. Moreover Counsel stated that the accused appellant No. 1 was 20 years of age and appellant No. 4 is 25 years of age whereas appellant No. 2 was 60 years of age and appellant No. 3 was 55 years of age at the time of the incident and the incident is of the year 1996 and more than 16 years have elapsed since the incident and he prayed for setting aside the judgment. In the alternate if this Court was satisfied regarding the conviction against the offence u/s 426 of the IPC the sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone.

Moreover, Counsel stated that to constitute an offence it is necessary that whoever is not a member of a Scheduled Caste intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate another person who is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribes in any place within public view; merely calling a person by caste without mens-rea or intention to insult and humiliate cannot constitute the offence u/s 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act. Counsel relied on Jasrath Singh and Another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, and Counsel prayed that in the instant case the ratio applied in full force. Moreover, Counsel stated that the benefit must accrue to the accused and urged that the appeal deserves to be allowed and the judgment of conviction deserves to be set-aside.

Learned Counsel for the State has per contra stated that the judgment of the Trial Court is in accordance with law and does not require any interference and the appeal filed by the appellant be dismissed.

On considering the above submissions I find that ingredients of Section 3(1)(5) of the SC/ST Act was not made out against the present accused appellants and sentence and conviction regarding the same is hereby set aside. Considering the fact that the damage of crops was caused and there has been a dispute regarding the grazing of the cattle; the conviction of the accused for offence u/s 426 of the IPC is upheld. However the custodial sentence is reduced to the period already undergone considering the ages of the appellants and the fact that the incident has occurred almost 16 years. However, the fine amount is raised to Rs. 2,000/- each out of which Rs. 5,000/- shall be paid to the complainant as compensation u/s 357 of the Cr.P.C. within a period of two months from the date of this judgment. On failure to pay the fine within the stipulated period and the appellants shall undergo the remaining sentence as directed by the lower Court.

With the aforesaid modification the appeal is partly allowed to the extent herein above indicated. Appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds and surety bonds are hereby discharged.

A copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned lower Court for compliance. CC as per rules.