BONDAR Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal of the year 1998 and by this appeal under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C., appellant Bondar has challenged the judgment dated 9.7.1998 passed by the Special Sessions Judge, Dhar in S.T.No.625/1996 whereby the appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the S.C. & S.T. Act and sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-and also sentenced to fine only for Rs.500/- for offence under Section 323 of the IPC. However, the appellant has been acquitted from offence under Section 506(2) of the IPC.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for elucidation are that on 3.7.1996 the complainant Rajkunwarbai, who belongs to a SC&ST community, at around 3.00 p.m. was working along with her sister-in-law and daughter at that time accused/appellant Bondar had come on a motorcycle and he tried to rape her and also threatened of dire consequences, if she shouted. However, hearing her shouts the sister-in-law and daughter of the complainant ran for help towards the village. Thereafter three boys who were on a tractor heard her and intervened and the accused fled away from the spot. The matter was reported at the police station. After completion of investigation, the accused was duly charged and committed to his trial. Accused/appellant abjured his guilt and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the matter. On the basis of the evidence on record, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as herein above indicated. Being aggrieved, the appellant has filed the present appeal.

(3.) Learned Counsel for appellant has urged that the conviction is contrary to the provisions of law. The Courts below had failed to appreciate the evidence and there are material omissions and contradictions in the testimony of the prosecution witness and the prosecutrix which have not been considered by the trial. Moreover, Counsel submitted that to constitute an offence under Section 3(1) (xi) of the Act it is necessary that whoever is not a member of a Scheduled Caste intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate another person who is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribes in any place within public view; merely calling a person by caste without mens-rea or intention to insult and humiliate cannot constitute the offence under Section 3(1) (x) of the SC & ST Act. Counsel relied on Jasrath Singh and another vs. State of M.P., 2005 4 MPLJ 363 and Counsel prayed that in the instant case the ratio applied in full force and also prayed that the conviction under the said offence be set aside.