RAMESH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Initially this appeal was preferred by the appellants namely; Bakhtwar Singh appellant no. 1 (since deceased) and Ramesh appellant no. 2 being aggrieved by the judgment dated 16.5.2002 passed by Special Judge, Raisen (Constituted under the provisions of Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), (In short 'the Act'), in Special Case No. 57/2000, convicting to each of them under Sections 451, 294, 323 and 506 of I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x) of the Act for RI 6 months with fine of Rs. 100/- in the first count, only fine of Rs. 100/- in the second count, fine of Rs. 500/- in the third count, fine of Rs. 200/- in the fourth count and for RI 6 months with fine of Rs. 200/- in the last count. In pendency of this appeal, on account of death of appellant no. 1 Bakhtawar Singh, his name was deleted, in such premises, this appeal is being decided in connection of appellant no. 2 Ramesh. The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that the complainant-victim Hari Singh (PW-1) gave are port in writing on dated 2.7.2000 at Police Station Harijan Kalyan Thana Raisen, on which a Crime No. 9/2000 was registered against the appellants for the offence of Sections 451, 294, 323, 506, 334 of I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. As per averments of such report, on dated 30.6.2000 in between 2-3 O'clock in the noon when the complainant Hari Singh sleeping on a open courtyard of his house, at the same time, the deceased appellant no. 1 and the appellant No. 2 came their and after abusing him with filthy languages, the appellant no. 2 gave him a blow of stick on his vest. In order to save, the complainant ran away from such place then, he was subjected to another blows of sticks by both the appellants resultantly, he sustained the injuries in his both the legs and fell down. Thereafter, he was beaten by the appellants with fists and kicks. On asking the reason by the complainant for such beating, then he was told by them that he is going to become 'Dada' and yesterday when some talk was going on with Gopal, at that time, his attitude with them was very arrogant. At the same time on hearing the shouts, the aunt of the complainant Janki Bai (PW-3) and another villager namely Phoolwati (PW-4) came and rescue him on which by abusing him with filthy languages in the name of the cast of the complainant "Godia", the appellants went away from such place. As per further averments, the criminal intimidation to kill him was also given to the complainant and due to said fear, he did not come to the Police Station immediately to lodge the report and subsequently, accompanied with his brother Anant Ram and some other persons, has come to the Police Station to give the report in writing. On which after registering the offence the victim was sent to the hospital where his MLC report was prepared in which, two contusions and two abrasions were found on his person. On completion of the investigation, the appellants were charge-sheeted for the offence of Section 451, 294, 323, 506/ 34 of I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x) of the Act.

(2.) On evaluation of the charge-sheet, the charge of Section 451/ 34, 294/ 34, 323/ 34, 506/ 34 of I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x) of the Act were framed against the appellants. They abjured the guilt on which, the trial was held. On appreciation of the same, both the accused were held guilty for the abovementioned offence and punished with sentence as mentioned above on which, the appellant has come to this Court with this appeal.

(3.) Shri Rajneesh Choubey, learned appearing counsel of the appellant No. 2 after taking me through the record of the trial Court as well as the impugned judgment argued that on taking into consideration the entire evidence led by the prosecution on it's face value as accepted in it's entirety even then, the charge of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, is not made out. In continuation, he said that in the lack of admissible evidence showing that the alleged act was committed by the appellant or the deceased appellant with the victim-complainant with intention to humiliate him on account of his caste at the place of the public view, the appellant could not be convicted under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. In such premises, the conviction of the appellant in such Section and it's awarded jail sentence is not sustainable in the matter. He further argued that undisputedly the alleged incident took place inside the premises of the victim-complainant where he was sleeping and such place could not be deemed to be in a public view. In any case, in the lack of any specific evidence on the record showing that the language and abuses which was used by the appellants had annoyed the victim or some other persons present there, the appellant could not have been convicted by the trial Court for the offence of Section 294 of I.P.C. He further argued that the story putforth by the prosecution has not been supported by any independent source of evidence or the witnesses and whosoever has been examined in support of the prosecution case, they being interested witnesses from the family of the victim, mere on their testimony the impugned conviction of the appellant under Sections 451, 323 and 506 of I.P.C. could not be sustained. According to his further submission, the enmity factor of the appellant and the victim as day before the incident some unhappy incident had taken place between them, has not been considered by the trial Court. On proper appreciation of such circumstances, the appellant ought to have been acquitted under such Section and prayed for extending the acquittal to the appellant from all the charges. In alternative, he prayed that in case, after acquittal from the charge of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, the conviction of the appellant in other Sections is upheld then, taking into consideration the alleged incident took place long before 11 years and the appellant did not have any criminal antecedents or the history and in such premises, he being first offender, the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, be extended to him otherwise, in any case, the appellant no. 2 be punished with the jail punishment for which he has already undergone between 26.12.2011 till today i.e. near about one month by imposing the amount of fine under the discretion of the Court. In such premises, the awarded jail sentence under Section 451 of I.P.C. be reduced from 6 months RI to the aforesaid period and prayed for allowing this appeal accordingly.