CHAMPALAL AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Appeal is preferred by the accused/appellants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 14.9.1998 passed by the Special Judge, Jabalpur in S.T.No.40/97. By the impugned judgment, the trial judge convicted the appellants for commission of offence under section 294, 506 -B IPC so also for commission of the offence under section 3(1)(x) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention) of Atrocities Act, 1989 ( in short 'the Act') and awarded sentence of RI 3 months in first count, RI one year in the second count while RI six months with fine of Rs.200/ - in the last count against each of the appellants.

(2.) THE prosecution case in brief is that a meeting of the Gram Panchayat, Khedla was held on 26.3.95. It was presided -over by Maina Bai, Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. She was member of Schedule caste 'Chamar'. When the meeting of the Panchayat was going on, there was verbal interaction between the Panchas, who are the accused persons, and the Sarpanch. The present accused persons asked the Sarpanch about accounts of the Gram Panchayat. Lakhanlal, husband of the Sarpanch was also present in the meeting. He had thrown the account -books and requested the Panchas to see the accounts. The Panchas made objection that the accounts were prepared at the residence of the Sarpanch. It is alleged that during that proceedings, the present appellants used filthy language against the Sarpanch and insulted by calling her caste name 'Chamar'. The report of the incident was lodged on the next day of the incident i.e 27.3.95 before Superintendent of Police, Hoshangabad. The police conducted the investigation and thereafter charge -sheet was filed before the Special Court. The appellants abjured the guilt. The court, after trial, held the appellants guilty for commission of the aforesaid offences and convicted and sentenced them as mentioned above.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants contended that the trial court has committed an error of law in holding them guilty for the offence under section 3(1)(x) of the Act. There is no evidence on record to substantiate the offence proved against the appellants. He further said that the trial court further committed error of law in relying on the evidence of the complainant, her husband and another witness who is the interested witness. The trial court did not consider the evidence of the independent witnesses, hence the judgment passed by the trial court is contrary to law. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of this court in the matters of Jasrath Singh and another Vs. State of M.P - : 2005(4) MPLJ 363 and Santosh Lodha Vs. State of M.P - : 2012(1) MPHT -237.