AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon''ble Shri Justice A.K. Shrivastava
Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.2.1999 passed by learned Special Judge, Damoh in Special Case No. 131/1997 convicting the appellants under Sections 324, 324/34, 323, 341 and 294 IPC and further convicting them u/s 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short "the Act") and thereby sentencing them to suffer imprisonment as mentioned in the impugned judgment, this appeal has been preferred by the appellants u/s 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 1.11.1997 between 9 to 10 a.m. complainant Indu after cutting the crop of paddy was going to receive the wages. On the way, nearby the house of Mandli Rai he met with the accused persons who stopped him and hurled the abuse of mother by denoting his caste. It is the further case of the prosecution that the parties are on inimical terms for last three years. A report was lodged by the complainant Indu in the concerned police station upon which a case was registered against the appellants including the offence u/s 3(1)(x) of the Act.
After the investigation was over, a charge-sheet was submitted in the Court of learned Special Judge, who framed the charges punishable u/s 341, 294, 324, 325/34 and 506 Later Part IPC and also u/s 3(1)(x) of the Act, which the appellants denied and requested for the trial.
The prosecution thereafter examined its witnesses. The defence of appellants is of false implication and same defence was also set forth in their statements recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. However, they did not choose to examine any witness in support of their defence.
Learned Special Judge on the basis of the evidence placed on record came to hold that appellants have committed the offence punishable under Sections 324, 324/34, 323, 341, 294 IPC and also u/s 3(1)(x) of the Act and eventually convicted the appellants and passed the sentence as mentioned in the impugned judgment.
In this manner this appeal has been filed by the appellants assailing their judgment of conviction and order of sentence.
The contention of Shri Kochar, learned counsel for the appellants is that if the word "Guduwa" which indicates the caste of complainant Indu has been uttered by the appellants, it would not mean that they have intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to humiliate the complainant. In this regard, he has invited my attention to a Single Bench decision of this Court, Ram Bahadur Singh vs. State of M.P., ILR (2011) M.P. 2553. Learned counsel further submits that looking to the cross-examination of the complainant it cannot be said that the place where this word was uttered is within the public view. In this connection, learned counsel has placed heavy reliance on the Single Bench decision of this Court Namita Agnihotri Vs. Dr. Rekha Barethia and Another, and also Karan Singh and Others Vs. The State of M.P., . Hence, it has been contended by learned counsel that the charges u/s 3(1)(x) of the Act as well as u/s 294 IPC are not proved.
It has also been put forth by him that so far as the conviction of the appellants under Sections 324, 324/34, 323 and 341 IPC is concerned, the appellants have already undergone the jail sentence of near about a month and this would be the appropriate punishment for these offences which they have already undergone.
On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor argued in support of the impugned judgment and submitted that cogent reasons have been assigned by learned Trial Court convicting the appellants and therefore, this appeal be dismissed.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties I am of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed in part.
So far as conviction of appellants u/s 3(1)(x) of the Act is concerned, the same cannot be allowed to remain stand for two reasons. Firstly, simply the appellants have uttered the word "Guduwa". In absence of any evidence on record that the said word was uttered in order to insult or intimidate the complainant intentionally, according to me, the offence is not made out. In the present case, absolutely there is no evidence of the prosecution that intentionally appellant uttered the word "Guduwa" in order to insult or intimidate the complainant. In this context, learned counsel for the appellants has rightly placed reliance on the Single Bench decision of this Court Ram Bahadur Singh (supra).
For the second reason the conviction cannot be upheld because it has come in the cross-examination of complainant Indu (PW-1) that the incident had occurred on the Chabutara adjoining to the house and therefore, it cannot be said to be the public view. This apart, in cross-examination in para-13 the complainant has admitted that except him nobody was there when the appellants uttered the word "Guduwa" to him and therefore, in view of another Single Bench decision of this Court Namita Agnihotri (supra) the offence is not made out.
That apart, according to me, if a person belonging to a particular caste, say for example, a Brahmin or any other member who does not belong to either Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community is called by his caste it would not mean that the person who is calling him has insulted him. Similarly, if a member of either Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community is called by naming his caste it would not mean that he has been intentionally insulted or intimidated unless and until there is evidence to that effect and hence, the legislature has enacted the words in Section 3(1)(x) of the Act that the member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community should be intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to humiliate because he or she belongs to a particular community. Since there is absolutely no evidence in this regard, I am of the view that the appellants have been wrongly convicted u/s 3(1)(x) of the Act.
So far as the conviction u/s 294 IPC is concerned, since the abuse of mother was hurled by the appellants adjoining to their house, according to me, the place cannot be said to be a public view and therefore, the conviction of appellants u/s 294 IPC is also hereby set aside. However, looking to the unimpeachable testimony of complainant Indu (PW-1) other offence under Sections 324, 324/34, 323 and 341 IPC are proved. The conviction of appellants under these sections is hereby affirmed and they are enlarged for the period they had already undergone. Resultantly, this appeal is allowed in part. The appellants are acquitted from the charge u/s 3(1)(x) of the Act and Section 294 IPC. However, their conviction under Sections 324, 324/34, 323 and 341 IPC is hereby affirmed and they are enlarged for the period they had already undergone. The appellants are on bail, their bail bonds shall stand discharged.