Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:1542 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 207 of 200 7 • Shivdatt S/o Madan Soni aged about 48 years, R/o Village Bannakdeeh, P.S. Tarbahar, District-Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. versus ... Appellant • State of Chhattisgarh, Through: P.S. Tarbahar, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant For Respondent/State
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. A.K. Shukla, Adv. and Mr. Vikas Ghritlahre, Adv. : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Judgment on Board Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal 09 / 01 /202 5 1 The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.03.2007 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC & ST, (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Bilaspur (C.G.), in Special Criminal Case No. 54/2006 whereby the learned Special Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under : Conviction Sentence U/s 294 of IPC S.I. for 1 month with fine of Rs. Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.01.14 10:23:29 +0530 2 500/-, in default of payment of fine amount additional S.I. for 15 days. U/s 323 of IPC S.I. for 6 months with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine amount additional S.I. for 15 days. U/s 3(1)(x) of SC & S.I. for 1 year with fine of Rs. ST (Prevention of 1000/-, in default of payment of Atrocities) Act fine amount additional S.I. for two (All the sentences were directed to run concurrently). months. 2 As per the prosecution case, it is alleged that on 03.11.2004 at about 6:00 pm, complainant Prakash (PW-1) who was running a betel shop, was sitting in his shop at the same time, the present appellant came there and took biscuits and betel from the shop, whereupon complainant Prakash (PW-1) asked for payment of the same, then the appellant got furious and started abusing him and also assaulted by means of wooden stick. The matter was reported to the police and after completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed against the appellant. 3 So as to hold the appellants guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 7 witnesses and exhibited 8 documents. The statement of the appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. However, the appellant has adduced two witnesses (DW-1 to DW-2) in his defence. 4 After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.03.2007, learned Special Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offences as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. 3 Hence, the present appeal. 5 Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the present case, the caste-based abuse has not been corroborated by any independent witnesses. Mere mention of caste is not sufficient for the offence but there should be an intention to insult or annoy on the basis of caste, which the prosecution has failed to prove. Therefore, offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is not established against the appellant. In support of his argument he placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the matter of State of Chhattisgarh vs. Laxmi Prasad Yadav, reported in (2014) 4 CGLJ 256. 6 Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that so far as the conviction of appellant for the offence under Sections 294 & 323 is concerned he is not pressing the appeal so far as it relates to the conviction part and would confine his argument to the sentence part thereof only. According to him, the incident is said to have taken place in the year 2004, and thereby more than 20 years have rolled by since then. At present, the appellant is aged about 68 years and he has already remained in jail for about 28 days, and no useful purpose would be served in sending him to jail again, therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the sentence imposed upon him may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 7 Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants. 8 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record including the impugned judgment. 4 9 The victims of the above allegation are Prakash (PW-1) and his mother Laxminbai (PW-3). According to Prakash Ratre (PW-1), the appellant had called him Chamara while according to his mother Laxminbai (PW-3), the appellant had abused her by calling her Chamrin. In this case, the caste certificate of complainant Prakash (PW-1) has been attached as Ex.P-3 according to which he comes under the Scheduled Caste category. It has also been argued by the appellant that mere utterance of caste-related words is not sufficient to prove the fact that there was an intention to insult or annoy on a caste basis. In support of the argument, the judgment in the matter of State of Chhattisgarh v. Laxmi Prasad Yadav, (2014) 4 CGLJ 256 has been referred, the relevant paragraph of this judgment is as follows:- “16. In case of Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, (2008) 12 SCC 531 the Supreme Court has clearly 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 and held as under:- “6. According to the basis 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 acused 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 a 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 fact the rigmarole of the criminal 5 trial would be totally unjustified leading to abuse of process of law.” 10 Since, in the case in hand, the dispute has been about the demand of money. In this situation, it cannot be assumed from the statements of the injured Prakash (PW-1) and his mother Laxminbai (PW-3) that at the time of the alleged incident, the appellant intended to insult or intimidate on a caste basis and it is also an important fact that the independent witness of this incident, Uttam Kumar (PW-5) has been completely hostile. Charan Yadav (PW-2) has not only confirmed the statements of caste abuse in his main examination, but after being declared hostile, even on the suggestion of the prosecution, he has denied the fact that the appellant had used caste abuses. Another witness Rahul (PW-4) has also not stated in his examination-in- chief that the appellant used abusive caste-related language and in paragraph 11 of his cross-examination he has stated that at the time of the incident, he was standing at a distance and could see the incident but could not hear it. Thus, this independent witness has also not confirmed the statements of abusive caste-related language. 11 On the above discussion, this Court finds that the manner in which the injured Prakash (PW-1) and his mother Laxminbai (PW-3) have alleged that the appellant hurled caste-related abuses is neither corroborated by the statements of independent witnesses nor does it appear from the above judgment in the subject matter that caste- related words were used with the intent to insult or intimidate on caste basis. Therefore, the conviction under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act is not sustainable in the absence of clear, sufficient and convincing evidence. 12 From the evidence gathered by the prosecution, this Court 6 is not convinced that the charge under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST Act is proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Conviction under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is thus set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the said charge. 13 However, the conviction of the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 294 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code is established by the statements of the injured Prakash (PW-1) and his mother Laxminbai (PW-3) which are supported by the statements of Charan Yadav (PW-2) and Rahul (PW-4). This Court does not see any illegality in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as regards the conviction of the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 294 & 323 of IPC. 14 As regards sentence, keeping in view the facts that the incident had taken place on 03.11.2004 about 20 years ago, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering that the appellant is aged about 68 years at present and has already remained in jail for about 28 days, this court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be served if his jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 15 In view of the above consideration, I do not feel it appropriate to send back the appellant to jail. Hence, the jail sentence of the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him instead of suffering jail sentence of 1 month and 6 months for the offences punishable under Sections 294 & 323 of IPC, respectively. However, the fine amount imposed upon the appellant by the trial Court shall remain intact. 16 Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated herein-above. 7 17 Appellant is on bail. His bail bonds shall continue for a further period of 6 months as per requirement of Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. 18 Record of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of this judgment forthwith for information and necessary compliance. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE H.L. Sahu