1 – Ramesh, son of Bahorik Yadav, aged about 40 years, resident of village v. 1 - State of Chhattisgarh thr
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:6393 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 311 of 2007 1 – Ramesh, son of Bahorik Yadav, aged about 40 years, resident of village Sukli Govind, Police Station Kunda, District Kabeerdham (Kawardha), Chhattisgarh. 2. Dilharan, Son of Ramesh Yadav, aged about 25 years, resident of village Sukli Govind, Police Station Kunda, District Kabeerdham (Kawardha), Chhattisgarh. 3. Dilip, son of Ramesh Yadav, aged about 20 years, resident of village Sukli Govind, Police Station Kunda, District Kabeerdham (Kawardha), Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh through District Magistrate, District Kabeerdham, Kawardha, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellants
Legal Reasoning
: Smt. Indira Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judgment on Board 04/02/2025 1. The present criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of CrPC has been preferred by appellants against the judgment of conviction and order of A ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by A ANNAJEE RAO 2 sentence dated 24.03.2007 passed by in Special Case No. 22 of 2006 whereby the learned Special Judge, Kabeerdham convicted and sentenced the appellants as under : u/s 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 : RI for 6 months and fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional RI for 1 month U/s 323 of IPC : RI for 3 months to each accused However, by the said impugned judgment the learned trial Court acquitted the appellants u/s 294 and 506-B of IPC. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that complainant Asha Ram who belonged to Scheduled Caste lodged a complaint to the effect that on 17.01.2006 at about 10.00 a.m., when he was taking bath in the courtyard of his house , the appellants came armed with Lathi and started abusing him in filthy language and said that the complainant had instigated Vimla Bai (wife of appellant Ramesh) against the accused due to which she ran away and did not return. The appellants further asked the complainant to bring Vimala Bai back and threatened to kill him and beaten him with sticks. At that time, wife of complainant namely Jeera Bai came to his rescue and then complainant lodged the report vide Ex.P-1 at Police Station Kunda. On such allegations, the police started the investigation and thereafter, the charge sheet was filed. 3. The prosecution has examined 11 witnesses to prove its case. After conclusion of trial and considering evidence of prosecution witnesses and material available on record, learned Trial Court vide impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the appellants for the offence, as mentioned above. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 24.3.2007, the present appellants had preferred the instant appeal. 3 4. Learned Counsel for appellants submits that the trial Court has wrongly relied on the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 who are the relative witnesses and their statements are not corroborated by the independent witnesses. She further submits that P.W.8 Dr. P.L. Kurrey has stated that the injuries are simple in nature, therefore, the conviction u/s 323 cannot be sustained. She further submits that the incident took place in the house of complainant, which is not a public place or public view. There is no evidence to show that the incident in question occurred only because the complainant belongs to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe category. Therefore, the ingredients of section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are not attracted. He prays that the impugned judgment be set aside and appellants be acquitted of the charges. 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that after considering the facts and evidence, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants, which needs no interference. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the records. 7. The appellants have been convicted of the offence under Section 3(1) (x) of the SC/ST Act, the provisions of which before the Amendment dated 26.01.2016 is reproduced here under :- “3. Punishments for offences of atrocities.-- “(1). Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe,-- 4 intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to (x) humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view; In this case, section 3(i)(x) of the SC & ST (POA) Act as it stood prior to its amendment dated 26.01.2016, is applicable to the instant case. The tenor of language employed in Section 3(1)(x) shows that prior to amendment dated 26th January, 2016, Section (1)(x) laid down “the Offence involves intentionally insulting or intimidating a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe” and the above alleged act must have been committed in some place within the public view. 8. In the instant case, the complainant/applicant Asaram (PW-1) has said that he is a Satnami and has asked the police to give his caste certificate. The caste certificate Exhibit P-2 has been certified by the Naib Tahsildar R.S. Markam (PW-4) stating that it has been issued. According to which the complainant Asaram belongs to the Satnami caste and falls in the Scheduled Caste category and this fact has not been challenged by the appellant side. 9. According to the complainant Asaram (PW-1), at the time of the incident, the appellants abused him by calling him "Chamara" and beat him with a stick, which has also been confirmed by his wife Jeera Bai (PW-2). From the entire prosecution case and prosecution evidence, it is clear that the reason for the dispute and the incident was that the appellant Ramesh had accused the complainant(PW-1) of eloping with his wife and daughter. Head constable Rajendra (PW-10) has confirmed this fact and said that the appellant Ramesh had lodged a missing report of his wife and daughter and had expressed suspicion on Asaram (PW-1). The above evidence does not show the reason for the dispute as narrated above and the analysis of entire 5 evidence does not reflect that the incident with the complainant Asaram (P.W.1) was caused only due to his caste basis nor does any such intention appear. The mere utterance of the word "Chamara" itself cannot be considered sufficient to prove that there was an intention to insult or annoy on a caste basis. In this situation, it is not proved that the appellant party insulted the complainant by abusing him on caste basis with the intention of harassing him. 10. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others (2008) 12 SCC 531 held that intentional insult or intimidation by the accused with intent to humiliate in a place within public view is a necessary ingredient for the said offence. At para 6 the Court held thus : “6. “………..According to the basic ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, the complainant ought to have alleged that the accused-appellant was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he (respondent No.3) was intentionally insulted or intimidated by the accused with intent to humiliate in a place within public view. In the entire complaint, nowhere it is mentioned that the accused- appellant was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and he intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to humiliate respondent no.3 in a place within public view. When the basic ingredients of the offence are missing in the complaint, then permitting such a complaint to continue and to compel the appellant to face the regmarole of the criminal trial would be totally unjustified leading to abuse of process of law.” 11. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in a mere recent case Rabindra Kumar Chhatoi v. State of Odisha & Anr decided on 11th December, 2024 held 6 that the place of occurrence was the backyard of a private house which cannot be said to be within the public view. Paras 12, 13 & 14 are relevant and quoted below : “12. ……. The allegations against the appellant herein are that he uttered words against the second respondent herein which was an offence within the scope and ambit of Clause (x) of subsection (I) of Section 3 of the SC & ST (POA) Act. As it stood prior to its amendment dated 26.01.2016, we have extracted the aforesaid clause :- “Clause 3(1)(x) states ‘Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine” 13. On a reading of the same, it is evident that the intention to insult or intimidate with an intent to humiliate a member of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe must be “in any place within public view.” There is no doubt that the second respondent herein, is a member of the Scheduled Caste. The question is, whether, the alleged utterances by the appellant herein, was in any place within public view. It is noted that when the second respondnent sought to repair her house which is adjacent to the appellant’s house along with her employees (Labourers) and went into the appellant’s house without seeking his prior permission, it was objected to by the appellant herein. The place of occurrence of the alleged offence was at the backyard of the appellant’s house. Backyard of the private house cannot be within the public view. The persons who accompanied the second respondent were also the employees or the labour force she had engaged for the purpose of carrying out repairs 7 to her house which is adjacent to the appellant’s house. They cannot also be termed as public in general.” 14. In the circumstances, we do not think that the alleged utterance of the appellant herein was “in any place within public view”. Therefore, the allegation against the appellant herein, was not made out as such.” (Emphasis supplied) 12. In the case before me also, complainant Asaram (PW-1) has stated that the incident happened in the courtyard of his house, which is also shown in the spot map (Exhibit P-4). The place of incident in that courtyard cannot be considered to be within public view. Therefore, the conviction and sentence of the appellants under section-3(1)(x) SC/ST Act is not found to be proved and the conviction of the appellants on that count is set aside and they are acquitted of the offence u/s 3(1)(x). 13. So far as conviction u/s 323 IPC is concerned, the evidence of complainant (P.W.1) and Sunila Bai (P.W.9) would establish the involvement of appellants in beating the accused and causing injuries which further stood firm by the statement of Dr. P.L. Kurre (P.W.8). Though the doctor has stated that the injuries are simple in nature, yet looking to the manner in which the incident took place and the injuries sustained by the complainant, this Court does not see any illegality in the findings recorded by the trial Court as regards the conviction of the appellants for the offence u/s 323 of IPC. 14. As regards the sentence, it is stated that the maximum jail sentence awarded to the appellants u/s 323 IPC is RI for 3 months, out of which, they had already undergone the jail sentence of 9 days. Keeping in view the fact that the incident took place in the year 2006 that is more than 18 years ago 8 and further considering the evidence of Head Constable (P.W.10) who categorically admits that even after filing the missing report by accused Ramesh, his wife and daughter could not be traced till long and accused Ramesh expressed doubt on the complainant for causing disappearance of his wife and daughter and further considering the fact that presently the appellants 1, 2 & 3 are aged about 58 years, 43 years 38 years respectively and they are facing the agony of proceedings since 2006, in the interest of justice, it would not be appropriate to send them again to jail. Hence, this Court is inclined to reduce the period of sentence from 3 months to the period already undergone by them. It is ordered accordingly. 15. Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated above. 16. The appellants are on bail. They need not to surrender in this case. Their bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months in view of the provisions contained in Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. 17. Let a certified copy of this judgment along-with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao