PARDESI RAM Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to judgment of conviction and sentence dtd. 26/4/2002 passed by learned Special Judge, Special Court, Raipur in Special Sessions Trial No.141 of 2001, whereby the appellants -Shiv Singh and Anand Ram have been held guilty of commission of offence punishable under Ss. 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "Act of 1989") and Sec. 323 of IPC and sentenced them as under :- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_35_LAWS(CHH)11_2022_1.html</FRM>

(2.) Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 23/4/2001 at about 8:00 PM, complainant Ramnarayan, Sarpanch of village got knowledge that Pardeshi and his wife Heerawavti are engaged in selling illicit liquor. After receipt of information, complainant alongwith Shrawan Kumar Verma (Peon of the Village Panchayat) and Milan Yadav went to house of Pardeshi and found that co-accused Anand Ram was consuming liquor, which was objected by them, upon which, the accused Pardeshi abused him in filthy language as well as by his cast. Co-accused Heeravati also abused him by his caste. Anand Ram assaulted the complainant and abused him by is caste as also Shiv Singh, son of Pardeshi Ram abused and assaulted him. Incident was reported to concerned Police Station, based upon which, FIR was registered against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Sec. 294, 506 read with Sec. 34 of IPC and Sec. 3 (1) (x) of the Act of 1989. After completion of investigation, investigating agency submitted final report against four persons namely Pardeshi Ram, Shiv Singh, Anand Ram, Heeravati for alleged commission of offence under Ss. 294, 506 read with Sec. 34 of IPC and Sec. 3 (1) (x) of the Act of 1989. Learned trial Court, based on the material in the charge sheet, framed charges against the accused persons for offence punishable under Sec. 3 (1) (x) of the Act of 1989 and Sec. 323 of IPC, to which, they have denied. Learned trial Court proceeded with the trail against the appellants. Prosecution examined as many as four witnesses namely Ramnarayan (PW1), Shravan Kumar Verma (PW2), Milan Yadav (PW3) Investigating Officer Sujeet Kumar (PW4) and exhibited four documents as Written report (Ex.P1), FIR (Ex.P-2) Caste Certificate of complainant (Ex.P-3) and Spot Map (Ex.P4) to bring home the guilt of the accused persons. Statement of accused persons were recorded under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. One defence witness namely Smt. Anjani Bai (DW1) was examined by the accused. Learned trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence brought on record by the respective parties held that the prosecution proved the charges under Sec. (3) (1) (x) of the Act of 1989 and Sec. 323 of IPC against the accused persons, convicted Pardeshi Ram, Heeravati for offence under Sec. 3 (1) (x) of the Act of 1989 and Sec. 323 of IPC and accused Shiv Singh and Anand Ram under Sec. 3 (1) (x) of the Act of 1989, Sec. 323 of IPC and awarded sentences as mentioned in paragraph- 1 of this judgment.

(3.) Shri Sabyasachi Bhaduri, learned counsel for the appellants would submit that two accused/appellants Pardeshi Ram and Heeravati Bai died during pendency of this appeal and the appeal filed on their behalf has been ordered to be abated and corrections to this effect have been made in the cause title of memo of appeal. He contended that as per case of prosecution, when complainant came to know that Pardeshi Ram is engaged in selling illicit liquor in his house, complainant along with two other persons went to house of late Pardeshi and found, accused- Anandram consuming liquor there. He contended that the incident took place inside the house, and therefore, provision under Sec. 3 (1) (x) of the Act of 1989 would not be attracted because as per case of prosecution, the incident did not take place in public view. He next submitted that even if during course of dispute which took place between the complainant and Pardeshi Ram, Heeravati, Shiv Singh and Anandram, there is no allegation that all the accused persons have abused him by his caste only because he belongs to scheduled caste community, with an intent to humiliate him and therefore also it cannot be said that the appellants have committed an offence as defined under Sec. 3 (1)(x) of the Act of 1989. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Swaran Singh and Ors. Vs. State through Standing Counsel and Anr. (2008) 8 SCC 435 and Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Anr. (2020) 10 SCC 710 (para- 13, 14, 17, 18). In support of his contention, he also referred to the deposition of the defence witness Anjani Bai (DW1) to submit that the incident took place inside the house of Late Pardeshi Ram and it is the complainant and two others who have assaulted Pardeshi Ram. It is next contended by learned counsel for the appellant that in the facts of the case, it cannot be said that the appellants have committed an offence under Sec. 3(1) (x) of the Act of 1989 when the place of incident is house of one of the accused persons and as per the complaint, complainant himself went inside the house of Late Pardeshi Ram and there some dispute took place.