Back
2006 Supreme(Jhk) 530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Amareshwar Sahay, J.
Manoj Kumar Jha and Ors.- Appellants
Vs.
State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)- Respondent
Cri. Appeal No. 162 of 1997 (P)
Decided On: 03.05.2006
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: J.P. Jha, Sr. Adv. and S.S. Choudhary, Adv.
For Respondents/Defendant: T.N. Verma, A.P.P.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of establishing the victim's membership in the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community as a prerequisite for invoking the penal provisions of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Headnote:
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes - Atrocities - Section 3(1)(II), Section 3(1)(X) - The judgment discusses the application of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, specifically focusing on the interpretation of Section 3(1)(II) and Section 3(1)(X) in the context of the offences alleged against the appellants. The court emphasizes the importance of establishing the victim's membership in the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community as a prerequisite for invoking the penal provisions of the Act. It concludes that the prosecution failed to establish this crucial fact, leading to the appellants' conviction being deemed illegal and unsustainable.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted under Sections 3(1)(II) and 3(1)(X) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for alleged offences against members of the Scheduled Caste community. The prosecution presented cases of abuse and physical assault on different dates. The defence claimed false implications due to enmity.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the crucial fact of the victims' membership in the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community, which is a prerequisite for invoking the penal provisions of the Act. As a result, the conviction and sentence passed against the appellants were deemed illegal and unsustainable.
Issues: The key issue revolved around the establishment of the victims' membership in the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community as a prerequisite for invoking the penal provisions of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that for invoking the penal provisions of the Act, it is essential to establish by cogent evidence beyond all reasonable doubts that the victim is a member of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes Community. The failure to establish this fact led to the appellants' conviction being deemed illegal and unsustainable.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the conviction and sentence passed against the appellants by the trial Court were set aside. The appellants, who were on bail, were discharged from the liability of their bail bonds.
Amareshwar Sahay, J.
1. The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 28.6.1997 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Godda in Special Case No. 2 of 1995, whereby and whereunder, the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the appellants under Sections 3(1)(II) and 3(1)(X) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and has sentenced them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of five years each except the appellant No. 6 namely Sarita Kumari who has been released one due admonition under Section 3 of the Probation of Offender Act.
2. The prosecution case in short is that Vishawnath Ravldas recorded his fard began on 3.10.1991 at village Dubrajpur wherein, he alleged that on 29.8.1991 Sanjay Kumar Jha (appellant No. 3) spate on the back of his son Devendra Das near Pepal Tree while he was going on the road on the pretext that his flower had become dirty as he was a Chamar.
The further case of the prosecution is that on 27.9.1991, Manoj Kumar Jha (appellant No. 1), Amol Kumar Jha (appellant No. 2), Sanjay Kumar Jha (appellant No. 3), Sarita Kumari (appellant No. 6), wife of Basudeo Jha (appellant No. 5) and Basudeo Jha (appellant No. 4) came in the Gali of the informant and abused him and his family members.
Again on 30.9.1991, Manoj Kumar Jha gave a push to Dropadi Devi, wife of Vishawnath Ravidas in the lane. Manoj Kumar and Sanjay Kumar also dashed the son of the informant i.e. to Keshri Das on 16.8.1991 causing injuries on his right leg.
3. The defence case is of false implications due to enimity.
4. In order to establish the charges, altogether nine prosecution witnesses were examined and on the basis of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant, as stated in earlier paragraphs.
5. From the facts stated hereinabove, it appears that the allegations against the appellants are for commission of the alleged offences on three different dates. The first occurrence is of 16.8.1991 on which date, it is alleged that Manoj Kumar Jha (appellant No. 1) and Sanjay Kumar Jha (appellant No. 3) dashed Keshri Das, the son of the informant by a bicycle in which, he got injuries in the right leg.
The second occurrence is of 29.8.1991 on which date, Sanjay Kumar Jha (appellant No. 3) spate on the back of the son of the informant namely on Devendra Das and also abused him.
The third, occurrence is of 27.9.1991 on which date, it is alleged that Manoj Kumar Jha (appellant No. 1), Amol Kumar Jha (appellant No. 2), Sanjay Kumar Jha (appellant No. 3), Sarita Kumari (appellant No. 6) and wife of Basudeo Jha i.e. appellant No. 5 and Basudeo Jha (appellant No. 4) came in the gali of the informant and abused him and his family. When the informant asked as to why he and his family members were being abused, it is said that Manoj Kumar Jha gave a slap on his face.
6. The trial Court framed the charges against Sanjay Kumar Jha under Section 3(I)(II) for throwing spate on Devendra Das with intent to cause insult, annoyance or injury to member of the Scheduled Caste and thereby committed an offence.
Manoj Kumar Jha and Sanjay Kumar Jha were also charged on the allegation that they dashed intentionally, insulted and intimated Keshri Das with intent to humiliate a member of Schedule Caste in any place within public view and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 3(1)(X) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Manoj Kumar Jha was also charged on the allegation that on 30th day of September, 1991, at village-Dubrajpur, that he assaulted and used force to a woman named Dropadi Devi belonging to Scheduled Caste with intent to dishonour or outrage her modesty and thereby, committed an offence under Section 3(1)(X) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
All the appellants were also charged for the allegation that they all abused Bishwanath Ravi
