Pappu Kanwar vs State of Rajasthan And Ors

The appellant Pappu Kanwar has approached this Court by way of the instant appeal under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the SC/ST Act’) being aggrieved of the order dated 14.12.2017 passed

by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No.211/2017 whereby, charges were framed by

the trial court against the appellant for the offences under Section 306 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeals are noted herein below:

The respondent No.2 Munna Ram lodged a written report with the SHO, Police Station Bhojasar on 08.10.2016 alleging inter alia that Smt. Pappu

Devi had been instigated to commit suicide by the accused Shiv Singh Fauji and his wife. He alleged that these persons, treated the victim with

physical and mental cruelty; abused her by using objectionable words against her. She was maligned on account of her caste. Pappu Devi could not

tolerate this grave injustice and insult and, came back to her house from the tube-well of Shiv Singh at about 6 O’ Clock in the evening and

committed suicide by consuming poison. None other family member was present in the house at that time. Pappu Devi’s son-in-law Omprakash

had been engaged as a labourer on the tube-well of Shiv Singh. Omprakash as well as his wife used to work there. However, Shiv Singh and his wife

harassed them extremely; hurled insinuations of theft and threatened to kill them; and abused them on the ground of their caste on which, Omprakash

gave up the contract and went back to his house. When Pappu Devi found that her son-in-law had been abused and had been made to go away from

the tube-well then, she convened a community meeting, Shiv Singh’s wife came to her house and threatened that either they should continue to

work at her tube-well or pay a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- by way of damages. Not only this, she threatened that she would kill the family members who

were of a lower caste. Being grave perturbed by this sequence of events, Pappu Devi consumed poison and ended her life.

The incident took place on 07.10.2016. The report came to be lodged on 08.10.2016 whereupon, an FIR No.121/2016 was registered at the Police

Station Bhojasar for the offences under Section 306 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act and investigation was commenced.

During the course of investigation, the I.O. got the dead body of Pappu Devi subjected to postmortem. Statements of witnesses were recorded.

Mobile call details were procured. A C.D. pertaining to the conversation held between Raju Ram and Shiv Singh was also procured.

The I.O. came to a conclusion that Omprakash, the son-in-law of Pappu Devi, had taken the tube-well/ agricultural field of Shiv Singh for cultivation

on sharing basis. Shiv Singh had paid some amount to Omprakash. By chance, the motor installed at the tube-well malfunctioned and could be repaired

after some delay. In the meantime, some crops standing on the field of Shiv Singh were damaged. Shiv Singh and Pappu Kanwar became annoyed

and hot talks took place between them and Omprakash who, left the tube-well on 01.10.2016 and went back to his house. On this, Shiv Singh and

Pappu Kanwar became angry and started threatening the complainant and his wife Pappu Devi on whose assurance, the tube-well had been given for

cultivation to Omprakash. They insinuated that they had spent a huge sum of Rs.8,00,000/- on the tube-well but because of the negligence of

Omprakash, whole of the standing crops had been destroyed and that the complainant and his wife would have to cover the damages. This altercation

took place on 03.10.2016 from 8 O’ Clock to 12 O’ Clock in the night. Pappu Devi then told Pappu Kanwar that she would take care of the

crops and would ensure that no loss was caused. She then collected her belongings; took her four month’s old daughter with her and went to the

tube-well of Shiv Singh and started working there. Munna Ram went to the tube-well and scolded his wife (the deceased) as to why, she had started

working at the tube-well of the accused. Pappu Devi then expressed her helplessness saying that it was their responsibility to ensure that the crops

were not damaged. Pappu Kanwar (accused) then threatened that the responsibility to keep the crops in a healthy condition was of the complainant

and his wife or they should bear damages. She forced Pappu Devi to stay back at the tube-well. Munna Ram became angry and went back to his

home. Pappu Devi called her nephew Bulla Ram to work with her at the agricultural field of the accused. She conveyed to some people on phone that

she was working on the field of Pappu Kanwar under pressure. The I.O. being the Circle Officer, Police Station Bhojasar concluded that Pappu

Kanwar must have insulted Pappu Devi on the ground of damage caused to the crops and as a result thereof, Pappu Devi became perturbed and

ended her life by consuming poison. The conclusions drawn by the Circle Officer in this regard, as reflected from the charge-sheet, are reproduced

herein below for the sake of ready reference:-

“

,

8 । ।

। ।

384 384 । ()

306

384, 306 3(1)( ),3( )( ) ।â€​

With these conclusions, a charge-sheet came to be filed against the appellant for the offences under Section 306 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the

SC/ST Act. The trial court, proceeded to frame charge against the appellant in the same terms by the order dated 14.12.2017 which is assailed in this

appeal.

Shri Sinwaria, learned counsel representing the appellant, vehemently and fervently contended that from the highest allegations as set out in the FIR,

no prima facie case under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act or Section 306 of the IPC is made out against the appellant. The prosecution allegations

are absolutely vague and flimsy. The field of the accused had been taken by the deceased’s family on sharing basis and a dispute arising

thereupon, has been given the colour of an offences. He urged that Munna Ram, the first informant, did not allege in his statement that the accused

hurled any caste based abuses towards him or towards his wife Pappu Devi in his presence. He further submitted that Omprakash has made vague

allegations in his statement regarding Pappu Kanwar having lost her temper because of the damage caused to the crops because she felt that

Omprakash had acted negligently and was responsible for the loss. He urged that the trial court has not framed charge against the appellant for any

alleged incident which might have taken place between her and Omprakash. On the other hand, so far as the incident with Pappu Devi is concerned,

other than conjectural inferences sought to be drawn from the statements of the prosecution witnesses, there is no direct or substantive evidence to

satisfy that the accused ever harassed or humiliated the deceased on account of her caste or that she instigated her to commit suicide. He urged that

as a matter of fact, the deceased appears to have been caught in a tug of war between her conscience to make good the losses caused to the

appellant by the negligent acts of her son-in-law Omprakash and of working in the field in his place against the wishes of her husband Munna Ram.

He urged that being perturbed by this conflict, the deceased lost her mental equilibrium; went back to her house and there, she consumed poison

thereby ending her life. He urged that admittedly, neither the appellant nor any of the members of the family of the deceased were present in the

house when she consumed poison. None of the prosecution witnesses claims to have witnessed or observed the talks which took between the

appellant and the deceased on 07.10.2016 before she committed suicide and thus, there is nothing on the record of the case to show that the appellant

is even remotely or in any manner responsible for the offences alleged. He thus urged that the trial court was absolutely unjustified in framing charge

against the appellant for the above offences. In support of his contentions, Shri Sinwaria placed reliance on the following Supreme Court judgments:

(i) Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of M.P. reported in AIR 2002 SC 1998, and

(ii) S.S. Chheena vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan & Anr. reported in (2011)2 SCC (Cri) 465, and implored the Court to accept the appeal; set aside the

impugned order and discharge the appellant from the charges.

Per contra, Shri Farzand Ali, learned AAG-cum-GA and Shri Vikram Sharma, learned Public Prosecutor, vehemently and fervently opposed the

submissions advanced by the appellant’s counsel. They contended that it is manifest from the evidence collected by the I.O. that the appellant and

her husband, had engaged Omprakash, the son-in-law of the deceased, on their field. Owing to circumstances beyond the control of Omprakash, some

of the standing crops were damaged. The appellant and her husband, raised a big hue and cry on this issue and threatened Omprakash with dire

consequences and pressurized him to make good the losses to the tune of Rs.8,00,000/-. Omprakash got spooked and abandoned cultivation on the

appellant’s field. The deceased, who had stood as a mediator in the engagement of Omprakash as a cultivator on the field, took righteous decision

of working on the appellant’s field in place of Omprakash so that she could re-compensate the losses to some extent. However, she was

continuously maligned by the accused. Not only this, her husband Munna Ram chastised her for working in the field of the accused and thus, the

deceased was faced with an extreme dilemma whether to work on the field of the accused and make good their losses or to respect her

husband’s desire that she should not work there. Finally, when she could not tolerate the conflict, she took the decision of ending her life. They

urged that it is well and truly established from the material available on record that the accused appellant harassed and humiliated the deceased by

hurling caste based abuses towards her and that she forced Pappu Devi to work on her field contrary to the wishes of her husband Munna Ram and

as a result, victim was left with no other option but to end her own life. They thus contended that the trial court was perfectly justified in framing

charges against the appellant as above by the impugned order which does not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever warranting interference. On these

grounds, they craved dismissal of the appeal.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar; perused the impugned order and the documents filed alongwith the

charge-sheet.

Suffice it to say, that no one from the array of witnesses examined by the investigating officer during the course of investigation, claimed to have

actually seen the accused harassing or humiliating the deceased or hurling caste based abuses at her. The crux of the prosecution case is centered on

the allegation that Omprakash, the son-in-law of the deceased, had taken the field/tube-well of the accused on share cultivation basis. The motor

installed at the tube-well malfunctioned and as a result thereof, the standing crops were damaged. The accused appellant and her husband held

Omprakash responsible for their losses and pressurized him to compensate on which, Omprakash left the job midway. The accused appellant and her

husband raked up this issue aggressively and thus, the deceased Pappu Devi decided to work on the field of the accused and make good some of the

losses attributed to her son-in-law. Munna Ram, the husband of Pappu Devi, was not agreeable that his wife should work on the field of the accused

and thus, he chastised the lady who became extremely perturbed by all these adverse circumstances and ended her life by consuming poison. Though,

the investigating officer has drawn conjectural conclusions in the charge-sheet that the accused insinuated that Omprakash had committed theft in

their field and was responsible for the losses, but even from the statement of Omprakash himself, nothing of this sort is reflected other than the fact

that Shiv Singh and his wife alleged that he was responsible for the malfunction of the motor. There is no independent or reliable material whatsoever

on the record of the case which can be considered sufficient to draw even a remote inference that the accused insulted the deceased or her family

members on the ground of their caste or that the deceased was instigated by the appellant to commit suicide. As a matter of fact, none of the

witnesses examined during investigation, claims to have personally witnessed the conversation which took place between the accused and the

deceased. The witnesses Raju Ram, Bulla Ram and Magaram have stated that Pappu Kanwar and her husband were levelling allegations that

Omprakash was responsible for the malfunction of the motor and that Smt. Pappu Devi (the deceased) took the responsibility upon herself that she

would make good the losses. Merely by this allegation, no such conclusion can be drawn that the accused appellant or her husband, abused or insulted

Smt. Pappu Devi on account of her caste or that they indulged into any such act or omission which could tantamount to instigating or abetting her to

commit suicide. The conclusions drawn by the I.O. in the charge-sheet, which have been referred to supra, are totally conjectural and not based on

any substantive evidence whatsoever. In addition thereto, even if it is assumed for a moment that these conclusions are correct, then also, they do not

constitute material sufficient to satisfy the Court that the appellant herein is prima facie responsible for the offences attributed to her.

In wake of the discussion made herein above, I am of the firm opinion that the impugned order dated 14.12.2017 whereby, the trial court framed

charges against the appellant in the above terms is not sustainable on facts as well as in law and deserves to be quashed and set aside.

Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 14.12.2017 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No.211/2017 is hereby set aside. The appellant is discharged of the charges levelled

against her.