Jayprakash Hinna vs Than Singh Jatav and Another

D.K. Paliwal, J.—This revision petition has been preferred u/s 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved with the order passed by learned Special Judge, Bhind in Spl. S.T. No. 30/09, whereby charges under Sections 294, 323, 506 Part II of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short the Act) have been framed against the petitioner. In brief the facts of the case are that respondent No. 1/complainant has filed a private complaint alleging that he belongs to scheduled caste community and was working in truck No. M.P. 09/K.C. 5925 as a cleaner. On 15.12.2005 at about 10.30 p.m. complainant was going from Itawah to Bhind on the aforesaid vehicle. As soon as he reached near RTO barrier, Phooph, Head Constable Jaiprakash Hinna, who was deputed there, stopped the vehicle and after verifying the papers of the vehicle, told that he would allow the vehicle to pass only when the complainant shall pay Rs. 800/- as Suvidha Shulk. When the complainant told that he is having all the papers then why should he pay the said Shulk, petitioner started abusing him in the name of his caste by saying and told that complainant has to pay Rs. 800/-. When the complainant refused to pay, petitioner called his associates who caught hold of the complainant and petitioner gave beating to him by means of kicks and fists. When the complainant was going to lodge the report at police Station, Phooph, Jaiprakash, Nathu and Shersingh threatened him. Then complainant lodged the report at Harijan Thana, Bhind, in writing. Thereafter, on the direction of Harijan Thana, he came to police Station, Phooph, and submitted his complaint. The complainant also submitted the complaint to senior police officers, but no action has been taken. Hence, this private complaint has been filed. Learned Special Judge has recorded the statements of complainant Than Singh and his witnesses under Sections 202 of Cr.P.C. and taken cognizance against the petitioner. Vide impugned order, charges have been framed under Sections 294, 323, 506 Part II of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. Being aggrieved, this revision petition has been filed by the petitioner.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that impugned order is against the principles of law. The entire prosecution story has been fabricated. There is prima facie no evidence to show that complainant belongs to scheduled caste community. There is prima facie no evidence that petitioner has addressed the complainant with the name of his caste with intention to insult him. Hence, it is prayed that impugned order framing charges under Sections 294, 323, 506 Part II of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Act be set aside.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 1-supported the order framing charges and submitted that from the material available on record, prima facie charges u/s 294, 323, 506 Part II of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Act have rightly been framed.

In view of the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the record.

As per the complaint, respondent No. 1-Than Singh belongs to scheduled caste. He was working as cleaner in the vehicle bearing registration No. MP 09 KC 5925. On 15.12.05 at about 10.30 p.m. as soon as he reached RTO Barrier, Phooph, petitioner stopped the vehicle and demanded papers. After going through the papers, he demanded Rs. 800/- as Suvidha Shulk (bribe). When it is objected by the complainant, petitioner abused him by saying . Thereafter petitioner also gave beating to him. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no material to hold that complainant belongs to a scheduled caste. Than Singh in his statement on oath submitted that he belongs to a scheduled caste. This statement is corroborated by Kallu and Akhilesh Jha. In view of the aforesaid statements, this submission of learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted.

The next contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no material to hold that petitioner intentionally insulted or intimated with intent to humiliate the complainant in a place within public view. The learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court towards the provisions of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. Admittedly, the incident is alleged to have taken place at RTO Barrier which is a public place and well within public view. So far as the intention of the petitioner is concerned, Thansingh categorically stated that accused persons are well acquainted with him because he often used to pass through from the Barrier. As alleged by the complainant, the incident had occurred on account of demanding bribe by the petitioner to allow the vehicle to pass through from the Barrier. Hence, there is no nexus between the commission of offence under the Act and caste of the complainant and it cannot be said that alleged words were used by the petitioner with intent to insult or humiliate the complainant on account of his belonging to a scheduled caste. Uttering the words by itself would not be sufficient in absence of any other material to hold that they have been used with intent to humiliate a member of scheduled caste or causing intentionally insults of a member of scheduled caste. This Court in the case of Surendra Kaurav and Others Vs. State of M.P., has held that merely uttering the words cannot be taken as sufficient for holding commission of offence u/s 3(1)(x) of the Act.

It is well settled that at the stage of framing of the charge, the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence, which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. The standard of test, proof and judgment which is to be applied finally before finding the accused guilty or otherwise, is not exactly to be applied at the stage of Section 227 or 228 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court at the stage of framing of charge is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence charge can be framed. But if we examine the instant case in the light of the above settled legal principles, it becomes clear that essential ingredient of requisite intention on the part of the petitioner as required for commission of offence u/s 3(1)(x) of the Act is missing. There appears no nexus between the commission of offence and caste of the complainant. Therefore, merely uttering the words cannot be said as sufficient for holding commission of offence under the Act, and thus, prima facie it cannot be said that charge u/s 3(1)(x) of the Act is made out.

So far as other charges are concerned, there is prima facie material to frame the charges under Sections 294, 323 and 506 Part II of IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is a government servant and he was on duty, therefore, sanction u/s 197 of Cr.P.C. is required before prosecuting him. No doubt it is true that petitioner is a public servant and for the prosecution of a public servant, sanction u/s 197 of Cr.P.C. is required, but only where the alleged act has been committed in discharge of official duty. The demand of Suvidha Shulk (bribe) by no stretch of imagination can be said to be a public duty, therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is bereft of merits In the light of the aforesaid discussion, charge framed against the petitioner u/s 3(1)(x) of the Act is liable to be quashed, hence, it is quashed. However, the trial against the petitioner shall proceed with regard to other charges for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 294 and 506 Part II of IPC. With the aforesaid, the revision petition is disposed of.