SUGDEO RAMCHANDRA TAYADE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HAVING suffered conviction under section 294 Indian Penal Code and section 7 (1) (d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act (P. C. R. Act for short) and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 15 days and fine of Rs. 100/- under first count and rigorous imprisonment for one month and fine of Rs. 100/- under second count, imposed by the Sessions Judge, Buldhana in Criminal Appeal No. 81 of 1990, the present appellant, an employee in the office of the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Buldhana, has preferred this revision inter-alia contending that his conviction more particularly under section 7 (1) (d) of P. C. R. Act, is wholly unwarranted and that the so-called insulting words alleged to have been uttered by him did not amount to insult or attempt to insult on the ground of untouchability in relation to a member of a Scheduled Caste. The petitioner was originally convicted in Criminal Case No. 328 of 1987 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Buldhana for offence under sections 448, 294 of Indian Penal Code and section 7 (1) (d) of P. C. R. Act. In appeal, the conviction and sentence under section 294 Indian Penal Code and 7 (1) (d) of the P. C. R. Act was maintained, but the conviction under section 448 Indian Penal Code was set aside.

(2.) THE facts which have given rise to the prosecution case are as follows : the petitioner accused and the prosecution witnesses at the relevant time were serving in the office of District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies. Buldhana. On 18-9-1987, there was a general strike of the State Government Employees and in pursuance of that strike, the petitioner accused had absented himself from the office. He expected all the colleagues working in that office to participate in the general strike. However, to his disappointment, the employees affiliated to CASTRIBE Union had not joined the said strike and the employees working in this office attached to the CASTRIBE union were attending the office. This had indeed angered the petitioner accused. Now, coming to the story of the prosecution case, the accused entered the office of the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Buldhana at about 1 P. M. and abused the employees working in that office and belonging to Mahar caste by hurling insults in most abusive language. To the details of the insulting words used, I shall come lateron. But suffice it to say, that they were directed towards Mahar employees who had not joined the strike under the direction of the Castribe union. It does not appear to be in dispute that majority of the members of the Castribe Union are members of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled tribes. It is the prosecution story that Assistant Registrar, Pande was present in the office and he tried to pursuade the accused not to give out abuses to the persons working in the office. But the said efforts proved to be in vain. Pande, therefore, informed the Police Station, Buldhana whereupon the police arrived at the office and carried the accused to the Police Station. The employees who were insulted presented the written complaint against the petitioner accused and after the routine investigation the accused was prosecuted in Crime No. 237 of 1987 under sections 448, 294 Indian Penal Code and 7 (1) (d) of P. C. R. Act. The investigation comprised of statements of various witnesses and when the Court found prima facie case against the petitioner accused, the Court framed charge under the above sections.

(3.) THE trial Court recorded the evidence of P. W. 1 Pralhad Vithoba at Ex. 9, P. W. 4 Keshav Arjun Arakh at Ex. 17 and P. W. 5 Janardhan Nathu Khare at Ex. 21, who were the employees and were working at the relevant time at the said office, and they uniformally reiterated that the accused gave abuses insulting the Mahar community people. There was also the evidence of Assistant Registrar, Pande, who also adverted upon the unbecoming conduct of the petitioner accused in the office on the date of the accident. The learned Magistrate found this evidence trustworthy. The learned Magistrate also found that the abuses given by the petitioner accused did insult the employees on the ground of untouchability. The case of trespass was also upheld and the learned Magistrate convicted the petitioner accused under various counts as indicated above.