BABU PRASAD PANDEY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA.

(2.) The present petition was filed by Babu Prasad Pandey against the order of detention in jail under Section 3 of the National Security Act (hereinafter referred to as N.S.A.). The brief facts as available from the ground of detention and the First Information Report of the case are that a report was brought to the Police Station by Hira Lai S/o Chunni Lal, a washer-man r/o Tendura, P.S. Bisanda, District Banda that the petitioner's wife had given birth to a child sometime early in the month of December. The mother of the informant Rookmani was asked by the petitioner to wash the clothes of his wife and the new born. She declined to do so on the ground that she had stopped doing the work of a washer woman for the last two years. This was not appreciated by the petitioner and he had taken the insult to her defiance to his heart. On the date of occurrence i.e. 27-1-2004 at about 4.00 p.m. the mother of the informant, Rookmani, was doing some work in the field of Rajauva. The petitioner, accompanied by Shivaram s/o Ram Das and Langi alias Nanna s/o Awadh Bihari alias Beta Pandit of his village accosted her there. The filthy abuses were hurled on her. When she resisted them from hurling abuses Langi smashed 3-4 slaps on her face and Shivaram snatched her woollen shawl. He gave a blow of hand on her breast. The petitioners started pulling dhoti from the person of Rookmani. Her body below her navel became exposed to public gaze. They have also dragged her to some distance by holding her legs in that naked condition. When the alarm was raised by this helpless woman they also removed Silver Lachha from her leg weighting about one pauv (200- 250 gms.) The incident was witnessed by Ram Kunwaria d/o Dashrath, Dasia, wife of Lamatera Chamar and Billari, mother of Bhawa Chamar. Out of them Ramkunwaria provided Rookmani a piece of cloth which was used by her to tie the bundle of her grass to cover her nakedness. While withdrawing from the first spot of incident the petitioner alongwith his companions assaulted Nerwa s/o Budda Chamar and Neta s/o Merma Chamar. On their arrival in the village from the scene of occurrence they told the daughter of Raja Zamadar that this sari belongs to Rookmani and she should set it afire. She refused to do so. She was chastised and was forced to part with the bundle of pual held by her. The accused including the petitioner then set afire that pual and placed the dhoti of Rookmani over it. The drama did not end here. They sat down around the bon fire and warmed their hands. These are the necessary facts from which following inferences flow : (1) Their ulterior intent behind this entire act. (2) they did not like her denial to wash the clothes of his wife and the new born kid during those days of her segregation. The real intention behind it was to cause fear amongst the downtrodden. To make them learn to be humble and remain subject to their mercy and dictates if they want to live in the village. There cannot any other inference flow from the act exposed to the society including beating of a young Chamar, chastisement of the young Scheduled Caste girl and forcing her to provide them pual. Burning the pual, putting on it the Dhoti of Rookmani in full public view inside the village. Denigration of a Harijan female in the above detailed manner apart. This entire scenario has carried the latent message of theirs in the downtrodden section of village inhabitance that do not treat themselves free citizen. The result of the act as earlier discussed was certainly to subjugate a particular section of the village polity to submit to their whims and fancies even after 56 years of the Independence though the Constitution has declared them equal and has also made arrangement for their well being, progress and improvement so that they may lead with dignity a decent peaceful life in the society sharing all types of platforms without any fear to their honour and life.

(3.) The entire act of the petitioner and his companions thus has resulted in effect causing of terror and panic in the mind of a particular section of the village inhabitancts. therefore it cannot be said that from the facts and the circumstances enumerated above it is not a case of causing disturbance to public order in respect of particular class of people who were also inhabitants of the said village. These people even now cannot live as per their will, treating themselves free citizen of India is clear and loud from their acts despite a constitutional security to them. They find it hard to meet the two ends satisfactorily even now. To deprive them of all the basic amenities guaranteed in the Constitutional and various provisions made by Government after Government to enforce the will of the Constitution. They desired them to underlive the same age old slavery. The act of the petitioner and his companions thus undoubtedly falls within the mischief of the term public order. There is no alternative for this Court to draw from the facts and circumstances disclosed from the grounds of detention and as discussed by us above any different inference.