DASRATHI RANA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Learned Counsel for the State. Though the informant (O.P. 2) entered appearance through his Counsel none appears on his behalf at the time of hearing.

(2.) THE Order Dated 21.6.2011 passed by the S.D.J.M., Athgarh, in C.T. No. 166/2011 taking cognizance of offences under Sections 341, 294, 323, 506, 34 I.P.C. and Section 3(i)(ii)(x) of the S.C. and S.T. (P.A.) Act, 1989 and issuing process against the Petitioners has been assailed in this Revision. The prosecution allegation as per the F.I.R. lodged by the informant before the L.I.C., Khuntuni P.S., is that the informant, Mandara Mallick, a member of Scheduled Caste, was engaged as a Tahali (messenger) by the villagers & being sent by the villagers, he went to the house of the Petitioners at, about 8 p.m. on 30.3.2011 & asked Petitioner No.1, Dasarathi Rana, to come to the village meeting & give festival chanda whereupon Petitioner No.1 abused him in obscene language addressing him as "Pana", his caste name. At that time Petitioner No.2, who happens to be the daughter of Petitioner No.1, came out of the house & instigated Petitioner No. 1 to assault the informant & also abused the informant saying '''Mandara Pana to munha bahuta badhigalani". Thereafter Petitioner No.1 dealt two slaps to the informant & threatened to kill him. At that time, the Grama Rakhi, Rabindra Naik, came to the spot & rescued him. The contention of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners is that the statement of the Grama Rakhi -Rabindra Naik reveals that by the time he arrived at the spot, the occurrence was already over & the informant was only crying on the spot & being asked, he described the occurrence to him, & therefore, no offence under Section 3(1) (x) of the S.C. & S.T. (P.A.) Act can be said to have been prima facie committed, as alleged. The insult or annoyance was not caused in public view. It is also his submission that Clauses (i) & (ii) of Sub -Section (1) of Section 3 of the S.C. & S.T. "(P.A.) Act cannot also be said to be attracted as because no allegation making out offences as defined in those two, Clauses has been made.

(3.) THE allegations made by the informant in the F.I.R. and in his statement before the Investigating Officer, as seen above, apparently do not satisfy the ingredients of the offences described in Clauses (i) and (ii) of Sub -Section (1) of Section 3 of the S.C. and S.T. (P.A.) Act, as none of the acts described in those Clauses has been alleged to have been done by the Petitioners. As it appears from the statement of the informant in his F.I.R. as well as the statement given to the Police and from the statement of the witness, Rabindra Naik (Grama Rakhi) the said witness arrived at the spot after the occurrence was over only to find the informant crying on the spot. This otherwise means that the occurrence had already been over before arrival of the witness on the spot, and therefore, any insult etc. to the informant by the Petitioners cannot be said to be made in public view. Therefore, the offence under Clause (x) of Sub -Section (1) of Section 3 of the S.C. and S.T. (P.A.) Act cannot be said to have been made out for want of the necessary mens rea of the offence.