VIMAL PRASAD TIWARI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment dtd. 27/3/2006 passed by Special Judge, the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, "the Act"), Shahdol, in Special Case No. 34/2005 holding the appellants convicted for the offence of Ss. 447 and 506 Part II of IPC and Sec. 3(1)(x) of the Act and sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment of 2 months, 3 months and 6 months respectively and additionally a fine amount of Rs.500.00 for the offence of Sec. 3(1)(x) of the Act with a default clause to undergo rigorous imprisonment of two months, in case of non-payment of fine.

(2.) The prosecution case may be summed up as, the dispute was about collecting the flowers of Mahua tree, which was planted in the ancestral property of complainant Vanshdhari in village Behgadh as Khasra No. 1/1; according to the complainant, on 14/3/2005 at around 7:00 a.m. he was collecting flowers of Mahua tree planted in his field along with his wife when appellants came there and asked them not to collect the flowers; when complainant asserted his right that the land as well as the tree belonged to him and he cannot be restrained from collecting the flowers, the appellants threatened them of life and insulted them by caste name; complainant made a written complaint to Thana Prabhari, Police Station, Jaitpur, but no action was taken, therefore, again a written complaint was made to police station established under the Act; Crime No. 8/2005 was registered and was investigated; the charge-sheet was filed and upon conclusion of trial, the impugned judgment was passed, convicting and sentencing the appellants as aforesaid.

(3.) The grounds raised in this criminal appeal are that no case was made out under Sec. 3(1)(x) of the Act as complainant belonged to the caste of Kumhar and calling him names by this caste would not itself mean any insult to him; it has also been argued that there were eight trees of Mahua that are claimed to have been belonging to complainant, but the dispute of collection of Mahua flowers was only with regard to one of them; it is claimed by the appellants that there is a dispute in the light of their contention of ownership over this Mahua tree, no offence of criminal trespass would be made out even if the appellants visited the place where this Mahua tree was situated; it has also been claimed by the appellants that if anything has been said due to provocation, the words do not amount to criminal intimidation as defined under Sec. 506 of IPC. The appellants have taken the plea that without looking to these aspects of the case, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence has been passed which needs to be set aside and the appeal deserves to be allowed.