VIRENDRA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Counsel for the petitioners has vehemently urged the fact that the petitioners are only aggrieved by order dated 11.08.2015 passed by the Special and Sessions Judge, Dhar in Sessions Trial No.51/15 framing charge for offence under Sections 294, 323, 323/34, 325, 325/34 and 506 of IPC and r/w section 3(1) (10) of the SC/ST Act. Counsel submitted that the order was bad in law primarily because the offence under Section 3(1)(10) of the SC/ST Act could not be made out against the petitioners. Merely calling the person by their community name would not amount to cause insult; basically the dispute took place between the parties due to agricultural land and this has not been disputed by the complainant. Especially in this light the statements of Pappu @ Rajesh, Binnu @ Hitesh, Mahavir and Sonu were recorded by police only indicated that the bad words hurled by the accused were not meant to insult or humiliate the complainant, but because there was an encroachment on their land. Counsel prayed that the application be allowed and at least charges under Section 3(1)(10) of the SC/ST Act be set aside. He placed reliance on Sushila Devi Sharma Vs. State of M.P. [2005(3) M.P.L.J. 152], Ratanlal Vs. State of M.P. [1994(1) MPWN Note -154], Anil Kumar Pandey Vs. Daulat Prasad [2005(4) M.P.L.J. 467] and Kanhaiyalal & Ors. Vs. State of MP in Cr.R. No.903/15 to state that the mens rea or intention to insult the complainant by his caste was not available on record. Counsel submitted that the applicant would be made to undergo rigors of the trial without there being any incriminating evidence on record. Counsel prayed that the petition be allowed.

(2.) Per contra Counsel for the respondent -State submits that the quarrel took place in an open place and the names of the caste of the complainant was uttered by the applicants. He however candidly admitted that the fight was regarding the agricultural land. He prayed for dismissal of the petition since what is to be seen at the time of the framing of charge whether there is a prima facie case.

(3.) On considering the above submissions and placing reliance on the above cited judgments, I find that the mens rea is absent and it would be crucial to the petitioners to place the trial under the said sections when the intention was missing. Thus there is no getting away from the fact that the entire incident took place because of the complainant having entered into the land of Virendra Bhati, the accused and not because the complainant belong to the caste of Khatik. Merely calling the person by his caste name does not amount to an insult of the complainant because he belong to a particular caste. The threats have been eminated from the past conduct of the complainant and their dispute with the accused regarding the ownership of the agricultural land and the word 'khatik' by itself would not amount to insult or annoyance of the complainant and the High Court held in the matter of Sushila Devi (supra) that there must be a nexus between the utterance of the word 'Khatik' and the intention to insult or annoy the complainant. And hence in this view of the matter I find that the petition needs to be partly allowed. It is hereby allowed. It is directed that although the framing of charge u/Ss. 294, 323, 323/34, 325, 325/34 and 506 of IPC is upheld and trial of the accused petitioners may go on in this regard, however framing of charges under Section 3(1) (10) of the SC/ST Act is hereby set aside as being contrary to facts on record and to provisions of law.