Kanhaiya and Others vs State of Madhya Pradesh

N.K. Gupta, J—The appellants have preferred the present appeal being aggrieved with the judgment dated 31.8.1998 passed by the Special Judge under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Khandwa in special case No. 14/1997, whereby the appellants have been convicted of offence under Section 3(1)(xiv) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter it will be referred to "Special Act") and sentenced to 1 year''s rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, 6 months'' rigorous imprisonment in addition.

The prosecution''s case, in short, is that, on 9.4.1997, the complainant Kadwa (P.W.2) alongwith his family members, Magan (P.W.3), Rukmani Bai (P.W.5) and Sita Bai (P.W.6) went to Ram temple at Bherukheda (Police Station Pandhana, District Khandwa) to offer Pooja of Gangaur. The priest Hareram (P.W.8) informed them that without the permission of the appellants, he could not permit the complainant and his companions to offer Pooja. The appellants who were residents of a nearby place were called and they started abusing the complainant and his companions and they were directed to go out. It was intimated that 5 stones were placed in front of the temple and the complainant and his companions may offer their Pooja there. Thereafter, at 3 p.m., when the complainant Kadwa alongwith Suresh and Radheshyam went to a Pan shop, the accused Pappu @ Ramchandra met him and he took the complainant Kadwa to give him an opportunity of Darshan. In the meantime, all the accused persons came simultaneously and assaulted the complainant Kadwa by kicks and fists. Also, a mob had pelted stones upon various persons and therefore, Sita Bai, Rukmani Bai and Magan etc. have sustained injuries. Thereafter, the complainant Kadwa went to the police station Pandhana and lodged an FIR, Ex.P/4. Various victims were sent for their medico legal examination and after due investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the Special Court.

The appellants abjured their guilt. They took a plea that it was not a case of untouchability but, Kadwa and his family members have falsely implicated the appellants in the crime. Kadwa and his family had assaulted various members of devotees including the appellant Ramlal and a case was registered against various relatives of the complainant including Magan etc. for offence under Sections 294, 323, 506-B, 147, 149 of IPC. In defence, certified copy of medical reports and FIR of that case have been filed.

Special Judge, after considering the evidence adduced by the parties, acquitted the appellants and all other accused persons from the charge of offence under Section 3(1)(xiv) of the Special Act and Sections 323, 147 of IPC. The appellants have also been acquitted from the charge of offence under Section 323 and 147 of IPC. However, they were convicted of offence under Section 3(1)(xiv) of the Special Act and sentenced as mentioned above.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

In the present case, if evidence given by Kadwa (P.W.2), Magan (P.W.3), Dayaram (P.W.4), Rukmani Bai (P.W.5) and Sita Bai (P.W.6) is considered then, it appears that there is no prohibition to the complainant and his family members to visit and pray in Ram temple. According to these witnesses and Hareram (P.W.8), the priest of that temple, it appears that for the purpose of Pooja of Gangaur, half portion of the temple was covered by sowing some wheat and for 7-9 days, those be kept there for worship. A gate and fencing of tin was done for the safety of that sowing. After growing of wheat, small plants grown in the temple were known as Jawara. Such Jawara could be distributed amongst them, who gave their contribution and who had sown those Jawara. There was permission of worship of such Jawara in the noon upto 4 p.m. and thereafter, such Jawara could be brought outside the temple and thereafter, those could be distributed to them, who gave their contribution for sowing of wheat. It was a procedure of worship for those two days, such Jawara be kept under worship done by priest thereafter, various villagers could take and worship those Jawara at their place. Kadwa, Magan and Dayaram have accepted about the procedure. Dayaram had also accepted that if someone enters in that sowing of wheat then, worship would go waste and till the final worship was not done of those Jawara, those could not be brought outside otherwise, such worship would be incomplete. Dayaram is brother of Kadwa and son of Magan and therefore, his testimony cannot be disbelieved in comparison to the testimonies of Kadwa, Magan, Rukmani Bai and Sita Bai.

In such pretext, if the evidence of Kadwa, Magan, Sita Bai and Rukmani Bai is considered then, it would be apparent that when Kadwa requested the priest to being Jawara out of the temple, at that time persons of Bheel community were worshiping those Jawara and therefore, the priest could not bring such Jawara outside the temple on a premature stage. When Jawara were taken outside of the temple, after completion of worship then, a riot took place between the parties and a criminal case was also lodged against Magan and his relatives for making riot. So far as the assault and other offences are considered, the trial Court found that the witnesses were not believable. They could not specify as to who assaulted them. Some of the persons in the crowd pelted stones upon the victims etc. and therefore, the trial Court acquitted the appellants from the charge of Sections 147, 323 of IPC.

Kadwa has accepted that the appellants are not the persons indulged in village politics. They were simply cultivators and they have no much concern to prohibit Kadwa and his companions to worship. Some of the witnesses have stated that they were never permitted to have Jawara after their worship but, some of the witnesses like Kadwa has stated that after construction of the temple for 1-2 years, they were given permission to see Jawara and thereafter, they were prohibited. When he was asked whether they have complained to the higher authorities about that partiality then, he has accepted that he was looking that ceremony from so many years and for the first time the priest has informed that the villagers have prohibited him to offer pooja on Jawara, whereas Magan, Sita Bai and Rukmani Bai have stated that they were never permitted to offer such a worship. If such worship of Jawara was being done from 20 to 25 years and if the complainant and his family was not permitted to offer pooja then, certainly they would have lodged the FIR in the past years but, no such FIR has been lodged. Therefore, it appears that in past they were permitted to offer pooja of Jawara and also to get some Jawara, after pooja.

When they were permitted to worship Jawara in the past years then, prohibition of the appellants for that particular day must not be on the basis of untouchability but, it must be with the reason that in the present year, Kadwa etc. would not have given their contribution to sow wheat and to get Jawara grown. Also, the priest could not bring Jawara outside of their place in a premature manner. Offence under Section 3(1)(xiv) of Special Act may be reproduced as under-

"3. (1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe-

(I) ....

(xiv) denies a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe any customary right of passage to a place of public resort or obstructs such member so as to prevent him from using or having access to a place of public resort to which other members of public or any section thereof have a right to use or access to;"

If such provision is perused with the factual position of the present case then, it would be apparent that the complainant Kadwa and his family members were not denied with their right of worship etc. in that temple. They did not allege that they were not permitted to visit inside Ram temple in routine days or they were not permitted to sow wheat after giving contribution. In this connection, evidence given by Hareram (P.W.8), priest of the temple is important, who has clearly stated that when Kadwa came and requested to take Jawara outside from there place then, priest has informed that such Jawara could not be taken outside, without completion of the worship. Thereafter, Kadwa started quarreling and after sometime, Kadwa and his family members started the riot. Looking to the entire evidence that when Kadwa was prohibited to get Jawara outside in a premature manner, it cannot be said that the appellants were liable for offence under Section 3(1)(xiv) of the Special Act because they did not deny any right of the complainant and his family members on the basis of their caste but, actually, the appellants prohibited them alongwith the priest of the temple, so that those Jawara could not be taken outside of the temple prematurely. The complainant Kadwa and his family members were not permitted to use their own discretion in the procedure of worship. If community of Bheel (A specific Scheduled Tribe) was permitted to offer worship to Jawara then, there was no need to the appellants or the priest to prohibit Kadwa and him family members. If a particular community of the complainant was prohibited to worship those Jawara then, such complaint would have been lodged 20 years back or soon after the enactment of the Special Act but, in past 20 years, the complainant and his family members never complained about such a prohibition and therefore, the appellant did not deny the rights of the complainant and his family members on the basis of untouchability but, they denied to do such an act, which was contrary to the procedure of worship. Hence, it cannot be said that the appellants had committed a crime under Section 3(1)(xiv) of the Special Act.

On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal filed by the appellants appears to be acceptable and consequently, it is hereby accepted. Conviction as well as sentence imposed by the trial Court of offence under Section 3(1)(xiv) of the Special Act against the appellants is hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted from all the charges appended against them. They are entitled to get the fine amount back, if they have deposited the same before the trial Court.

The appellants are on bail. Their presence is no more required before this Court and therefore, it is directed that their bail bonds shall stand discharged.

A copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court alongwith its record for information and compliance.