MAHASUKHRAI KESHAVLAL JOSHI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is preferred by the appellant-orig.convict (hereinafter referred to as the appellant') against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 15th January, 1993. passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rajkot. in Sessions Case No. 173/1991. under Section 374 read with Section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973. The learned trial Judge at the conclusion of Ihe trial has held the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 3(1) (10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and also under Section 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code. While passing the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the learned trial Judge has observed, "where for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 7 of the Civil Rights Act. as it is included under Section 3(1) (10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act and further offence is committed, it is not in the interest of justice to pass any separate order of punishment." However, the learned trial Judge has given benefit of doubt to the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code. For the sake of brevity and convenience, and to appreciate the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant Shri Harnish Darji on behalf of Shri Y.S. Lakhani as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. D.S. Pandit, it would be appropriate to state the basic facts of the case of the prosecution reflected in charge framed vide Ex. 1.

(2.) According to prosecution, on 14th August. 1991, in the afternoon at 03-45 p.m.. the appellant made fun of the complainant Shri D. L. Maheshwari, Senior Clerk of the Police Central Motor Transport Workshop (hereinafter referred to as 'the workshop'). But when the complainant asked the appellant not to make fun of him. the appellant started using abusive and obsessive language for the complainant in the Account Branch of the office of the Commissioner of Police, Rajkot. The appellant addressed the complainant by his caste name and the said, "go, go, 'Sala Dheda'". In vernacular Gujarati language, the word 'Dheda' is being used for undermined low caste or the members of the low caste. 'Dhed' is the name of a community falling in the category of Scheduled Castes so far as the State of Gujarat is concerned. The appellant also asked the complainant to get lost from there, meaning thereby, the Account Branch where the complainant had gone with one Akbarkhan Husseinkhan, Buckle No. 294, who was the writer-Police Constable for the work of said Akbarkhan. The appellant told the complainant. "This is not your Kachchh, I have taught lessons to them whomsoever has stood against me. If you will speak much, your wife and children will be kept waiting for you and I will get you killed. Nobody will come to know about your whereabouts." It is alleged that the appellant in spite of knowing that the complainant is the member of Scheduled Caste, he was addressed accordingly and the complainant was insulted and the appellant was making fun of him. The appellant had addressed the complainant with an intention to humiliate him in public and threatened him to be killed. The obsessive language is also used to provoke the situation of the office room where the incident has occurred. It is the say of the prosecution that by this offending act. the appellant has committed offence punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and also tinder Section 3(1)(x) of the Act.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has taken me through the oral as well as documentary evidence led during the course of trial and also the version of the defence-side. It is argued that the judgment and order of conviction and sentence is bad and illegal and suffers from factual as well as legal errors committed by the learned trial Judge while appreciating the evidence and, hence, it cannot sustain mainly on the grounds mentioned in the memo of the appeal. He has also taken me through various grounds of challenge and also conduct of the learned Presiding Judge and it is alleged that it has resulted into serious prejudice to the appellant.