IMPORTANT POINT
Simply addressing a person by his caste without any intention to insult or intimidate does not constitute offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC & ST Act.

ORDER

U.S. Tripathi, J. - This revision has been directed against the judgment and order dated 4-10-2001, passed by N.B. Singh, Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Court No. 3. Deoria in Special Trial No. 52 of 2001, convicting the applicant under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- only.

2. The prosecution story briefly stated was that on 20-9-1992 at about 7.00 p.m. at Kasba Bhatpar Rani, P.S. Bhatpar Rani, District Deoria, the applicant voluntarily caused hurt to Ashok Kumar and also threatened him to kill. He lodged a report of the said occurrence. On the basis of the report a case under Section 323/506 IPC and Section 30) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (hereinafter called the Act) was registered. After investigation the police submitted charge sheet. During trial before the Special Judge the prosecution examined Ashok Kumar (PW1), Ram Nandan (PW2), Ram Cheej (PW3) and Nandani Prasad (PW4). The learned Special Judge on considering evidence of the prosecution found that the offenses punishable under section 323/506 IPC were not made out against the applicant and he acquitted him under the said sections, but he further held that the offence punishable under section 30)(x) of the Act was proved against him. He accordingly convicted him under the said section and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- only. Since no appeal lies against the sentence of fine, not exceeding Rs. 200/-, therefore, the applicant challenged his conviction and sentence in this revision.

3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

4. It was contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that out of four witnesses examined by the prosecution Ram Cheej and Nandji has turned hostile and they had not supported the prosecution story and that complainant Ashok Kumar, (PW1) and Ram Nandan Prasad, (PW2) had partly supported the prosecution story and their evidence does not prove the ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act Section 30)(x) of the Act reads as under:-

(3) (1) Whoever not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe:

(x) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within the public view, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine."

5. Thus the offence under said section is made out if a person not being a member of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of scheduled caste and scheduled tribe in any place within public view.

6. The judgment of the trial court itself shows that there was nothing in the statement of Ashok Kumar (PW1) to show that the applicant intentionally insulted or intimidated him with intent to humiliate him. However, he stated that the applicant and his companions used ugly words relating to his caste. What were those ugly words have not been specified. Unless the words uttered by the applicant have come in the evidence, it cannot be ascertained that those words amounted to insult or intimidate the witness.

7. The other witnesses Ram Nandan Prasad, (PW2) stated that two or three persons accompanying Pappu Singh (applicant) had used words "CHAMARIYA" when they proceeded near the garage of uncle of Pappu Singh. Accused Pappu Singh again started beating but he could not identify at that place. He did not use ugly words relating to his caste. Assuming that the applicant had used word "CHAMARIYA" and addressed the complainant with the said words it can not make out the offence punishable under section 3(1)(x) of the Act, as simply addressing a person by his caste without any intention to insult or intimidate does not constitute the offence under said section Moreover this witness has sta