Back
2011 Supreme(Chh) 19
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Pritinker Diwaker, J.
Mafidar
Vs.
State of M.P.
Criminal Appeal No. 981 of 1996
Decided On: 25.01.2011
The prosecution must prove the caste of the complainant and provide evidence of abuse in public view to establish a conviction under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Headnote:
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe - Atrocities - Section 3(1)(x) - [Section 3(1)(x)] - The court acquitted the accused under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, highlighting the failure of the prosecution to prove the caste of the complainant and the possibility of false implication due to village politics. The court emphasized the lack of evidence to show that the complainant party was abused by the accused persons in public view, leading to the decision to set aside the conviction.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution alleged that the accused and three others were harassing people belonging to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe community, depriving them of government scheme benefits. The accused was convicted under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the caste of the complainant and highlighted the possibility of false implication due to village politics. It emphasized the lack of evidence to show that the complainant party was abused by the accused persons in public view.
Issues: Failure to prove the caste of the complainant, possibility of false implication, lack of evidence of abuse in public view.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision to acquit the accused was based on the failure of the prosecution to prove the caste of the complainant and the lack of evidence to show that the complainant party was abused by the accused persons in public view.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the judgment impugned was set aside, and the accused was acquitted of the charge.
Pritinker Diwaker, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 31.5.1996 passed by the Special Sessions Judge, Raipur in Special Case No. 174/1996 convicting the Appellant under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and pay fine of Rs. 500 in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 11.10.1993/23.10.1993 a written report was made by six women including Chandra Bai (PW-1) alleging that accused/Appellant and three other persons were harassing the people belonging to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe community and thereby depriving them of getting the benefits under various government schemes. It is alleged that accused/Appellant is a feudal landlord (maalgujar) and after consuming liquor he was in the habit of abusing women belonging to scheduled caste and scheduled tribe community and was not even permitting them to fetch water from the public bore-well. Based on this report FIR (unexhibited) was registered against the accused/Appellant herein and three other persons on 2.12.1993 under Section 3(1)(X) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. After completion of investigation challan was filed on 7.2.1994 for the said offence.
3. So as to hold the accused persons guilty, prosecution has examined as many as 06 witnesses in support of its case. Statements of the accused persons were also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied the charges levelled against them and pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case.
4. After hearing the parties the trial Court has acquitted accused Mahendro, Shankar and Lalo of the charge levelled against them but convicted and sentenced the accused/Appellant herein as mentioned above.
5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the judgment impugned.
6. Counsel for the accused/Appellant submits that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the fact that the complainant party belongs to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe community as no evidence in this regard either oral or documentary has been adduced by the prosecution. He submits that in this case the investigation has been done by the Sub Inspector whereas according to the legal provisions it ought to have been done by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. He submits that even the investigating officer has not been examined in this case and that neither in the report nor in the evidence the ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) are made out by the prosecution. He submits that there is no evidence on record to show that the accused/Appellant had abused the complainant party in the name of their caste.
7. On the other hand counsel for the Respondent/State supports the judgment impugned and submits that the findings of the Court below convicting the accused/Appellant under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act being based on the material available on record, are just and proper and do not call for any interference in this appeal.
8. Chandra Bai (PW-1) has stated in her evidence that she belongs to Soura caste and also holds the post of the President of the Mahila Mandal of 30 members. She has stated that all the accused persons belong to the same family and on account of fetching of water from the bore well there was a dispute between her and the accused persons. She has stated that the accused persons had thrown cow-dung in the said well and when all the women had gone to fetch water in the public bore-well, they were not permitted to do so by the accused persons. In cross examination this witness has stated that written report was prepared by one Dolamani and that she was not aware as to what was written in the same.
