PILLU ALIAS PYARELAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed by the appellant under section 374 of the Cr.P.C being aggrieved by the judgment dated 18.10.2001 passed by the Special Judge, Chhatarpur (constituted under the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (in short 'the Act') in Special case No.9/01 whereby he has been convicted under section 323 of the IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act with a direction to undergo for RI six months with fine of Rs.250/- separately in each of such section, in default of depositing the fine, additional jail sentence of 15 days on each count has been awarded. The sentences are directed to run concurrently.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that on dated 23.9.2000 at about 6.30 in the evening at P.S. Gulganj, complainant Mohan (P.W.1) lodged the FIR contending that yesterday night, he accompanied with Bhajju Kondar and the appellant, went to village Gulganj to see the 'Notanki' (Drama). After viewing the same, at about 6 O' Clock in the morning when they were returning, on the way near river Paniyari of village Majgava, some hot talk took place between Bhajju and the appellant in which one said to another that "you are my son and I am your father", on which appellant became angry and said to Bhajju that he being from lower caste how could be his father and, in continuation, he gave a blow of stick on the head of Bhajju resultantly, he sustained the injury with bleeding. Thereafter, he accompanied with Kallu and Kurra Gadariya came to the police station for lodging the report. It is also stated that on account of simple thing appellant has beaten to Bhajju. On such factual matrix the offence of section 307 of the IPC and section 3(1)(x) of the Act was registered against the appellant. The injured was sent to hospital where his MLC report was prepared. On completion of investigation the appellant was charge sheeted for the offence of section 307 of the IPC and section 3(2)(v) of the Act. On evaluation of the same, on framing the charge of section 307 of the IPC and in alternate section 3(ii)(v) and section 3(1)(x) of the Act, the appellant, abjured the guilt, on which, the trial was held. On appreciation of the evidence, by acquitting the appellant from the offence of section 307 of IPC and section 3(ii)(v) of the Act, he was held guilty for the offence of section 323 of the IPC and section 3(1)(x)of the Act and punished with the above-mentioned sentence. Being dissatisfied with such conviction and sentence, the appellant has come to this court with this appeal.

(3.) Shri Pradeep Naveria, learned counsel for the appellants after taking me through the record of the trial court, without challenging the findings holding guilty to the appellant for causing the alleged incident has made his limited submission to extend acquittal to the appellant from the offence of section 3(1)(x) of the Act. In support of such contention, by referring the evidence, available and exhibited papers of the charge sheet, he said that on proper appreciation it is apparent that the alleged incident did not take place because of the caste of the complainant Bhajju covered under the Act. In continuation, he said that Bhajju accompanied with appellant and other person went to see the Notanki (drama) and while returning in the morning, on account of some small dispute the alleged hot talk took place between them and, in such premises, the alleged incident was happened. In such scenario, it could not be deemed that appellant had committed such act to humiliate the complainant on account of his caste covered under the Act and prayed to extend acquittal to the appellant. So far the charge of section 323 of the IPC is concerned, he said that looking to the nature of the incident and the injury sustained by the victim and also taking into consideration the circumstance that such incident took place long before in the year 2000 and thereafter no criminal antecedents has been reported against the appellant. Besides this, he did not had any criminal antecedents or history so he being first offender, by adopting some lenient view, his jail sentence under such section be reduced from six months upto the period of 17 days suffered by the appellant in judicial custody between 4.10.2000 to 20.10.2000 by enhancing some amount of fine under the discretion of the court and prayed to allow this appeal accordingly.