Back
2011 Supreme(Chh) 321
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J.
CHHEDI LAL - Appellant
Vs.
STATE OF M.P. (NOW C.G.) - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1524 1994
Decided on: 31-10-2011
Shri S. Imtiaz Ali and Shri Adil Minhaj, Advocates, for the Appellant.
Shri U.K.S. Chandel, Panel Lawyer, for the State.
The importance of proving the accused's non-membership in the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and the need for reliable witness testimonies in cases under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Special Act.
Headnote:
Scheduled Caste - Atrocity - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Section 3 (1) (x) - Section 3 (1) (x)
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a barber, was convicted under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for refusing to shave a member of the Scheduled Caste. The complainant alleged that the appellant intentionally insulted him based on his caste.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence did not establish that the appellant was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, and the testimonies of the witnesses were not reliable. The conviction under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Special Act was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Issues: The issues revolved around the appellant's caste, the reliability of witness testimonies, and the application of Section 3 (1) (x) of the Special Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that to establish an offense under Section 3 (1) (x), it is essential to prove that the accused was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and that the insult or intimidation was intentional with the intent to humiliate in a place within public view. The court also highlighted the importance of examining witness testimonies in light of relevant facts and circumstances.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of the charge.
As per Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.:-
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10th of November, 1994, passed in Special Case No. 144/91 by the Special Judge, Raipur.
2. By the impugned judgment, the appellant has been convicted under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Special Act') and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 months.
3. The facts, briefly stated, are as under:-
Complainant - Kheduram Banjare (PW-1) is a member of Satnami Scheduled Caste. On 19.3.1991, he went to the appellant for shaving, as the appellant used to perform the work of Barber. The allegations are that the appellant refused to shave the complainant on the ground that he is Satnami. He uttered that he would not shave a Chamar as they are of low caste. When the complainant went to the appellant, the appellant was cutting hair of Yashwant Kumar (PW-4). According to the complainant, Bhagvati Verma (PW-2) and Tilakram Verma (PW-3) were also present at the time of incident. The complainant lodged the F.I.R. (Ex. P/l), on which, the offence was registered. The learned Special Judge relied on the testimonies of complainant-Kheduram Banjare (PW-1) and Tilakram Verma (PW-3) and held that the appellant was liable for punishment under Section 3 (l) (x) of the Special Act.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that it was not established that the appellant was not a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe; complainant-Kheduram Banjare (PW-1) admitted that there was a party bandi in the village and the complainant and Tilakram Verma (PW-3) were the members of one party and the appellant was the member of other party, therefore, the appellant was falsely implicated on account of village rivalry; the learned Special Judge erred in law in placing reliance on the evidence of Kheduram Banjare (PW-l) and Tilakram Verma (PW-3).
5. On the other hand, Shri U.K.S. Chandel, learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the State, opposed these arguments and supported the judgment passed by the Special Judge.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the Special Case.
7. Section 3 (1) (x) of the Special Act provides that whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within pubic 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. It is apparent from the above provisions of Section 3 (1) (x) that the complainant should allege and prove that the accused was not a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and that the complainant was intentionally insulted or intimidated by the accused with intent to humiliate in a place within public view.
8. In case on hand, complainant Kheduram Banjare (PW-1), nowhere said that the accused was not a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Neither in the F.I.R. (Ex.P/l) nor in the Court deposition, the complainant has deposed about the caste of the appellant/accused. The evidence of Kheduram Banjare (PW-1) would show that he contended that the appellant/accused was a Barber. It is not necessary that a person performing the work of barber may not be a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Unless it is proved that the appellant was not a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, he cannot be punished for an offence under Section 3 (1) (x). In fact, this is one of the basic ingredients of the aforesaid offence. Please see Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others (2008) 12 SCC 531.
9. The learned Special Judge has placed reliance on the evidence of Kheduram Banjare (PW-1) and Tilakram Verma (PW-3). Kheduram Banjare (PW-1) admitted in the cross examination, paragraphs 7 and 8, that Jhaduram Verma was the
