RAVAL MANGABHAI MAFABHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri A.V. Nair, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Shri Harin P. Raval for the appellant and Ms.D.S. Pandit, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the respondent-State. Today both, the appellant and the orig. complainant-victim, are present in the Court.

(2.) It is submitted by Shri A.V. Nair, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, that the present appeal is arising out of the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 29th April 1993 passed by the learned Special Judge, Mehsana in Special Atrocity Case No.10 of 1993, whereby the learned trial Judge held the appellant guilty for the charge of offence punishable under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The learned trial Judge has sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code; and so far as the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(10) of the Act is concerned, the learned trial Judge has sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. No separate sentence has been awarded for the offence punishable under Section 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code. The learned trial Judge has ordered both the sentences to run concurrently. According to Shri A.V. Nair, his submissions run into two folds. The first fold of his submissions is that the parties have compounded the offence so far as the offence punishable under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, and they have jointly prayed that they may be permitted to compound the offence by tendering a compromise pursis signed by both the parties; and both the parties have been identified by two different lawyers. The orig.gcomplainant-victim has prayed that he may be permitted to compound the offence with the appellant herein and the appellant may be acquitted from the charge of offence punishable under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) The second fold of argument of Shri A.V. Nair is that the alleged quarrel between the appellant and the orig.complainant was the result of an individual dispute regarding payment of an amount. It is clear from the evidence that perhaps there was some hot exchange of words and the complainant-victim was given a blow. It is settled legal position that the prosecution is supposed to establish one clear fact to bring home the charge of offence punishable under the provisions of the Act that the offence was committed only because the complainant-victim is a member of either Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. There should not be any victimisation of a member of either Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, is the intention of the legislature. Each individual offence committed qua the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe member would not fall in the category of offence punishable under Section 3(1)(10) of the Act or any other atrocious act described and enumerated in Section 3 of the Act. It is not even the say of the complainant that the offence was committed qua him because he was a member of the Scheduled Caste, if the evidence of the complainant is read as a whole.