HUKUM SINGH Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the judgment of conviction delivered by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, (Special Judge) Mandsaur in Special Case No. 114/91 this appeal has been preferred by the appellants. Appellants were put up for trial for having committed offence punishable under S. 3(2)(iii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as Act for short). The appellants have been convicted and sentenced to undergo six months' RI and each appellant was also sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default to undergo two months' S.I. Trial Court also awarded Rs. 6,000/- as compensation to the complainant Onkar under S. 357 of the CrPC. During the pendency of appeal, appellant No. 3 Dungarsingh s/o Nirbhaysingh died. Thus, appeal so far as Appellant No. 3 Dungarsingh is concerned it stands abated.

(2.) THE facts in brief which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as under : It is alleged that on 5.9.1991 appellants let loose their catties in the field of complainant Onkar and when that was objected to by the wife of the complainant Bhagatbai, the appellants set fire to open hut. The appellants are also alleged to have given beating to Bhagatbai and on hearing hue and cry Bhawarbai came and rescued Bhagatbai. The husband of Bhagatbai was not in village and upon his return the incident was narrated to him by Bhagatbai. As a result on 6.9.1991 FIR was lodged by Onkar husband of Bhagatbai at P.S. Suwasra. After completing the investigation the police filed challan for offences punishable under Ss. 440 and 435 of IPC r/w S. 3 (2) and 3(2)(iii) of the Act against the appellants. On the basis of challan learned Sessions Judge framed charges against the appellants only for having committed offence punishable under S. 3(2)(iii) of the Act. No charge for having committed any offence punishable under IPC was framed against the accused persons.

(3.) WITHOUT any provacation she was given beatings. According to this witness, the appellants had set fire to open hut. She does not say that the appellants tried to throw her into the burning hut. PW 3 Shyam is the major son of complainant Onkar and Bhagatbai PW 2. According to this witness he was present on the spot at the time of incident. This is in direct contradiction with the evidence of PW 2 Bhagatbai. Assuming for a moment that PW 3 was also present on the spot then it is highly unnatural for a son not to come forward to protect his mother when she was alleged to have been beaten by the appellants and when appellants tried to push her into the burning hut. No man worth has salt would tolerate this kind of behaviour with his own mother. Another witness who has been examined by the prosecution is Bhawarbai PW 4 and Bhagga PW 5.